Conflicts between chicken welfare and - WUR E-depot home

Conflicts between chicken welfare and

public health risks in poultry husbandry

Stakeholders’ perceptions and moral convictions

Mariska van Asselt

Thesis committee

Promotors Prof. Dr E.N. Stassen

Professor of Animals and Society

Wageningen University & Research

Prof. Dr B. Kemp

Professor of Adaptation Physiology

Wageningen University & Research

Co-promotor Dr E.D. Ekkel

Professor Green and Vital Cities

Aeres University of Applied Sciences Almere

Other members Prof. Dr M.N.C. Aarts, Radboud University, Nijmegen

Prof. Dr S.S. Arndt, Utrecht University

Prof. Dr J.A. Stegeman, Utrecht University

Prof. Dr M.F. Verweij, Wageningen University & Research

This research was conducted under the auspices of the Graduate School of Wageningen

Institute of Animal Sciences (WIAS).

Conflicts between chicken welfare and

public health risks in poultry husbandry


Mariska van Asselt

Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of doctor

at Wageningen University

by the authority of the Rector Magnificus,

Prof. Dr A.P.J. Mol,

in the presence of the

Thesis Committee appointed by the Academic Board

to be defended in public

on Friday 10 May 2019

at 1:30 p.m. in the Aula.

Mariska van Asselt

Conflicts between chicken welfare and public health risks in poultry husbandry;


226 pages.

PhD thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands (2019)

With references, with summaries in English and Dutch

ISBN: 978-94-6343-580-2

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18174/469482

Voor FLEDC

Altijd in mijn hart

Table of contents

CHAPTER 1

General introduction

8

CHAPTER 2

Perceptions of laying hen husbandry: a survey among citizens, poultry farmers, and veterinarians

22

CHAPTER 3

Perceptions of citizens, poultry farmers and poultry veterinarians of laying hen welfare

48

CHAPTER 4

Risk perceptions of public health and food safety hazards in poultry husbandry by citizens, poultry farmers, and poultry veterinarians

76

CHAPTER 5

The trade-off between chicken welfare and public health risks in poultry husbandry: significance of moral values

106

CHAPTER 6

Views on laying hen husbandry: A farm visit with citizens 138

CHAPTER 7

General discussion

166

APPENDICES Summary 204

Samenvatting 210

Dankwoord 216

About the author 220

List of Publications 222

WIAS training and education certificate 224

Mariska va

General introduction

1

van Asselt

CHAPTER 1

10

BACKGROUND

In order to ensure cheap and ample food, after World War II livestock husbandry

systems were developed into increasingly intensive production systems with a focus

on high production rates (Rollin, 2004). Farm animals such as poultry were no longer

kept in backyard flocks on mixed family farms, but were kept on specialised farms in

confined industrialised systems, such as battery cages for laying hens (Golden et al.,

2012; Rollin, 2004; Spoelstra et al., 2013). Due to specialisation, intensification and

the use of new technologies, the number of animals per farm and production rates

increased, while the number of farms decreased (Rollin, 2004; Spoelstra et al., 2013).

New production practices, such as preventive antibiotic use, beak-trimming in laying

hens, high stocking densities, and battery cages for laying hens, became mainstream

and made it possible to produce in an economically efficient manner. Animals were

predominantly valued for their instrumental value, namely their productivity.

As a result of intensification, fewer people were involved in livestock production and

the general public was often no longer aware of the production practices used in

intensive animal husbandry. As early as the 1960s, the publication of Ruth Harrison’s

book, ‘Animal machines: the new factory farming industry’ (1964), made the general

public aware of intensive management practices and the welfare problems of animals

kept in those intensive systems. The book provoked intense public concerns about

farm animal welfare in Europe (Van de Weerd et al., 2008). Protests by activists and

animal welfare organisations brought home to governments that they had to address

public concerns regarding animal welfare. In 1965, the Brambell committee reported

the basic ethical and biological principles for farm animals (Brambell, 1965), which

formed the bases for the formulation of the Five Freedoms in 1979 (Farm Animal

Welfare Council, 2009). These developments have resulted in legislation to protect

farm animal welfare at national and EU level. For example, in 1998, the Council

Directive 98/58/EC concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes

came into force in the EU (Council of the European Union, 1998). Meanwhile, other

practices in society involving animals, such as keeping pets and livestock as a hobby,

grew in importance, which gave rise to different human-animal relationships (Rollin,

2004). Animals were no longer merely valued for their instrumental value, but were

also considered to have relational and intrinsic value (Cohen et al., 2009). These

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

11

developments have changed people’s moral convictions regarding the treatment of

animals (Cohen et al., 2009; Rollin, 2004, 2007).

To comply with these changed moral convictions regarding animals, but also forced by

new legislation in the European Union, such as the ban on conventional battery cages

for laying hens since January 2012 (Council of the European Union, 1999), new poultry

husbandry systems have been introduced. The focus is no longer predominantly on

production output, but also on chicken welfare. These alternative husbandry systems,

such as non-cage systems, free-range or organic systems, are potentially beneficial to

chicken welfare, because they offer more space and opportunities to express natural

behaviour (Freire et al., 2013; Rodenburg et al., 2012; Shimmura et al., 2010).

However, the introduction of these new systems has brought different problems to the

fore, such as other chicken diseases and other public health and food safety hazards.

For example, outdoor systems are associated with higher public health risks for

certain hazards, such as Campylobacter, avian influenza, and dioxin (Kijlstra et al.,

2009). For broiler chickens, an older age at slaughter and outdoor access are risk

factors for increased Campylobacter prevalence in broilers and on broiler meat (Backer

et al., 2011; Bouwknegt et al., 2004; EFSA, 2011; Heuer et al., 2001; Rodenburg et al.,

2004; Rosenquist et al., 2013; Sommer et al., 2013). Outdoor access for laying hens

increases the risk of introducing avian influenza into flocks (EFSA Panel on Animal

Health and Welfare et al., 2017; Gonzales et al., 2013; Koch et al., 2006) and increased

dioxin levels in eggs (e.g. EFSA, 2012; Kijlstra et al., 2007; Pussemier et al., 2004;

Schoeters et al., 2006; Van Overmeire et al., 2006; Van Overmeire et al., 2009). These

examples show that adaptations in husbandry systems in order to improve chicken

welfare, such as providing outdoor access to chickens, may result in increased risks to

public health and food safety for certain hazards.

Societal debates on how to keep chickens are ongoing. The general public has

expressed concerns regarding chicken welfare (Eurobarometer, 2005) and in reaction

to this, husbandry systems have been developed to improve chicken welfare. However,

these new systems have been developed without giving sufficient thought to public

opinion. An example is the development of the enriched colony cages systems for

laying hens. Although chicken welfare in these colony cages is better than in the

battery cage systems (Appleby et al., 2002; Freire et al., 2013), these systems do not

adequately address societal criticism regarding keeping chickens in cages (Weary et

1

CHAPTER 1

12

al., 2016). Moreover, the general public has expressed concerns about the public health

risks of livestock production and the safety of food (Bergstra et al., 2017; Hansen et

al., 2003). In outdoor husbandry systems, the interests of humans, such as public

health are not always in harmony with the interests of chickens, mainly chicken

welfare. The general public is not always aware of the increased risks of certain

hazards associated with outdoor husbandry systems (Kijlstra et al., 2009). These kinds

of issues may go unnoticed for some time, until an animal welfare or public health

issue comes to the surface and draws societal attention. For example, the reaction to

the mass culling of healthy animals during a disease outbreak, like during the outbreak

of the highly pathogenic avian influenza in 2003 in the Netherlands, showed that the

general public no longer agreed with the culling of animals for predominantly

economic reasons, which led to intense public debate regarding the treatment and

keeping of animals (Cohen et al., 2009). Therefore, public opinions on hen husbandry

and related dilemmas should be considered to maintain and increase societal support

for poultry husbandry.

In their role as consumers, members of the public express their opinions on animal

husbandry by increasingly purchasing organic and welfare-plus animal products.

Moreover, the general public is currently influencing the debate on poultry husbandry

by engaging in societal debates and through NGOs and political voting, for example in

the Netherlands by voting for the ‘Animal Party’ (Partij voor de dieren). This implies

that for responsible innovation of poultry husbandry systems, interaction is needed

between society and the poultry sector in order to gain societal support and to retain a

licence to produce in the future (Boogaard et al., 2011). Therefore, it would be valuable

to know how those stakeholder groups perceive different poultry husbandry systems,

hen welfare, public health risks, and how they balance the interests of chickens

against those of human, when faced by a conflict between chicken welfare and public

health risks.

PERCEPTIONS

Different people or groups of people may have differing perceptions of poultry

husbandry systems and aspects such as animal welfare and public health risks,

because perceptions depend on people’s knowledge, interests, and moral convictions


13

(Knight et al., 2008; Te Velde et al., 2002). Citizens perceive animal welfare

differently from professionals working in animal husbandry, such as farmers and

veterinarians. Professionals tend to focus on health and production indicators, while

citizens focus on possibilities to express natural behaviour and lead natural lives

(Bracke et al., 2005; Fraser et al., 1997; Te Velde et al., 2002; Vanhonacker et al.,

2008). Likewise, citizens perceive public health and food safety risks differently from

experts on public health (Hansen et al., 2003; Jensen et al., 2005). Non-experts assess

risks more intuitively than experts do and take other aspects such as feelings and trust

into account (Finucane et al., 2000; Slovic et al., 2007). These different perceptions of

citizens and professionals working in poultry husbandry regarding animal welfare and

public health risks will influence the perceptions of poultry husbandry systems in

general, but will also affect the way in which chicken welfare is weighed against

public health risks.

MORAL CONVICTIONS

In a society, people share a common morality, which has been constructed in that

society over time and is shaped by knowledge and many social, religious, cultural, and

technological aspects (Beauchamp et al., 2009; Cohen et al., 2009). The common

morality is based on plural moral convictions explained by deontological and

consequentialistic theories (Mepham, 2000b). Consequently, moral judgments of a

dilemma involve multiple moral convictions regarding stakeholder groups, such as,

farmers, citizens, and consumers of chicken products, and chickens. Relevant moral

convictions from different ethical approaches are: autonomy, justice, wellbeing, and

not harm (Beauchamp et al., 2009; Mepham, 2000a). Furthermore, the way in which

people view the hierarchical position of humans compared with animals has been

shown to play a role in dilemmas related to human-animal issues (Cohen et al., 2012).

In order to form a judgment in the dilemma of improving chicken welfare or reducing

public health risks, the interests of humans and chickens will be weighed against each

other, and one will have to decide when convictions regarding either humans or

chickens are sufficiently important to outweigh the others. Although in a society

people share moral convictions, in practice people may approach a dilemma

differently, because for different individuals, different convictions may weigh more

heavily (Childress et al., 2002; Cohen et al., 2009; Cohen et al., 2012). For example, a

1

CHAPTER 1

14

farmer may perceive his own autonomy to choose a certain husbandry system as more

important than the behavioural freedom of chickens and providing chickens with

outdoor access. Moreover, morality is continually changing, as are our convictions

regarding keeping animals (Cohen et al., 2009). For example, the moral convictions

regarding the value of animals has changed from a predominantly instrumental value

to a relational and intrinsic value (Cohen et al., 2009).

Diverse issues such as animal welfare and public health risks have been assessed in

various poultry husbandry systems (e.g. Bokma-Bakker et al., 2006; Holt et al., 2011;

Lay Jr et al., 2011; Mollenhorst et al., 2006; Rodenburg et al., 2012; Rodenburg et al.,

2008; Shimmura et al., 2010). The perceptions of diverse stakeholder groups

regarding animal welfare (Bracke et al., 2005; De Jonge et al., 2013; Te Velde et al.,

2002; Tuyttens et al., 2014; Vanhonacker et al., 2012; Vanhonacker et al., 2008) and

public health risks (Fife-Schaw et al., 1996; Frewer et al., 1994; Hansen et al., 2003;

Jensen et al., 2005) have also been studied. However, perceptions of chicken welfare

and public health risks have not been studied in an integrated way in poultry

husbandry. The dilemma of improving chicken welfare or reducing public health risks,

as well as the moral convictions involved, have also not been the subject of integrated

research.

OBJECTIVES

The main objective of this thesis was to study the conflict between chicken welfare,

and public health and food safety risks. To do so, perceptions of three stakeholder

groups – citizens, poultry farmers, and poultry veterinarians – were studied regarding

hen husbandry systems, hen welfare, public health and food safety risks, moral

convictions and opinions on the dilemma. After analyses of those results, we also

found it valuable to study the views of citizens on an innovative laying hen farm,

which considers aspects of hen welfare and public health, in real-life conditions.

Therefore, a farm visit with citizens was done. Based on the results, implications for

the development future poultry husbandry systems are formulated.


15

The objectives of this thesis were:

1) To determine the preferred hen husbandry system and its relation to the

importance of husbandry issues for citizens, poultry farmers, and poultry

veterinarians.

2) To determine the perceptions of citizens, poultry farmers, and poultry

veterinarians regarding hen welfare in four different hen husbandry systems and

valuation of welfare aspects.

3) To determine risk perceptions of citizens, poultry farmers, and poultry

veterinarians regarding food safety and public health hazards in poultry

husbandry systems, and factors explaining these risk perceptions.

4) To gain insight into the judgment of citizens and poultry farmers regarding three

cases representing the dilemma of choosing between improved poultry welfare

and reduced public health risks, and the moral convictions involved.

5) To study the views of citizens on a laying hen farm, which considers aspects of

hen welfare and public health, in real-life conditions.

Outline of this thesis

Chapters 2, 3, 4 and 5 are based on a survey by means of an online questionnaire filled

in by citizens, poultry farmers, and poultry veterinarians. The quantitative

questionnaire was developed based on a literature review and input from a consulting

group. The questionnaire included questions about preferred husbandry systems and

the importance of poultry husbandry issues; knowledge of poultry husbandry;

perceptions of chicken welfare in four husbandry systems and chicken welfare aspects.

Also, perceptions of public health risks in four husbandry systems and factors of risk

perception were asked. Moreover, questions were asked about moral convictions

relating to the dilemma, three cases representing the dilemma of improving chicken

welfare or reducing public health risks, and moral arguments relevant to the dilemma.

The last part of the questionnaire regarded questions about socio-demographic

characteristics. Chapter 2 describes the preferred hen husbandry systems for citizens,

poultry farmers, and poultry veterinarians. Moreover, these stakeholders’ views on the

importance of 10 issues of hen husbandry are presented, as well as how they relate to

the preferred system. In Chapter 3, the perceptions of citizens, poultry farmers, and

poultry veterinarians regarding laying hen welfare in four different husbandry

1

CHAPTER 1

16

systems are described. In addition, their perceptions of aspects of hen welfare and the

relation between these aspects and the perceptions of hen welfare in four systems are

presented. Chapter 4 presents the results of risk perceptions of citizens, poultry

farmers, and poultry veterinarians regarding public health risks and food safety risks

in four poultry husbandry systems, as well as factors that explain these risk

perceptions. Chapter 5 presents the judgments of citizens and poultry farmers

regarding three cases illustrating the dilemma of improving poultry welfare or

reducing public health risks, and relevant moral conviction and arguments. The three

cases involved Campylobacter contamination in broilers, avian influenza infection of

laying hens, and increased dioxin levels in eggs. Moreover, the relationship between

judgments, arguments and convictions, and the differences between citizens and

poultry farmers are analysed. After analyses of the questionnaire and a further

literature review, we also found it valuable to study the views of citizens on an

innovative laying hen farm in real-life conditions. Therefore, during a farm visit,

citizens filled in a questionnaire about the hen husbandry system, hen welfare, public

health risks, and some specific farm and chicken aspects such as naturalness. Chapter

6 reports the results of this farm visit with citizens. Chapter 7, the general discussion,

further discusses the results of the survey and farm visit, and their implications for

future poultry husbandry.


17

REFERENCES

Appleby, M. C., Walker, A. W., Nicol, C. J., Lindberg, A. C., Freire, R., Hughes, B. O., & Elson, H. A. (2002). Development of furnished cages for laying hens. British Poultry Science, 43(4), 489-500. doi:10.1080/0007166022000004390

Backer, J., Bergevoet, R., Fischer, E., Nodelijk, G., Bosman, K., Saatkamp, H., & Roermund, H. v. (2011). Control of highly pathogenic avian influenza: epidemiological and economic aspects. Retrieved from Den Haag: http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/fulltext/173727

Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2009). Principles of biomedical ethics (6th ed.). New York / Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bergstra, T. J., Hogeveen, H., Erno Kuiper, W., Oude Lansink, A. G. J. M., & Stassen, E. N. (2017). Attitudes of Dutch Citizens toward Sow Husbandry with Regard to Animals, Humans, and the Environment. Anthrozoös, 30(2), 195-211. doi:10.1080/08927936.2017.1310985

Bokma-Bakker, M. H., Van Hierden, Y. M., Houwers, H. J. W., Rodenburg, T. B., & Kijlstra, A. (2006). Animal friendly housing systems and food safety. A study on opportunities, threats and solutions. Retrieved from

Boogaard, B. K., Oosting, S. J., Bock, B. B., & Wiskerke, J. S. C. (2011). The sociocultural sustainability of livestock farming: An inquiry into social perceptions of dairy farming. Animal, 5(9), 1458-1466. doi:10.1017/S1751731111000371

Bouwknegt, M., Van De Giessen, A. W., Dam-Deisz, W. D. C., Havelaar, A. H., Nagelkerke, N. J. D., & Henken, A. M. (2004). Risk factors for the presence of Campylobacter spp. in Dutch broiler flocks. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 62(1), 35-49. doi:10.1016/j.prevetmed.2003.09.003

Bracke, M. B. M., de Greef, K. H., & Hopster, H. (2005). Qualitative stakeholder analysis for the development of sustainable monitoring systems for farm animal welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 18(1), 27-56. doi:10.1007/s10806-004-3085-2

Brambell, R. (1965). Report of the technical committee to enquire into the welfare of animals kept under intensive livestock husbandry systems . Retrieved from London:

Childress, J. F., Faden, R. R., Gaare, R. D., Gostin, L. O., Kahn, J., Bonnie, R. J., . . . Nieburg, P. (2002). Public health ethics: Mapping the terrain. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, 30(2), 170-178.

Cohen, N. E., Brom, F. W. A., & Stassen, E. N. (2009). Fundamental Moral Attitudes to Animals and Their Role in Judgment: An Empirical Model to Describe Fundamental Moral Attitudes to Animals and Their Role in Judgment on the Culling of Healthy Animals During an Animal Disease Epidemic. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 22(4), 341-359. doi:10.1007/s10806-009-9157-6

Cohen, N. E., Brom, F. W. A., & Stassen, E. N. (2012). Moral Convictions and Culling Animals: A Survey in the Netherlands. Anthrozoös, 25(3), 353-367. doi:10.2752/175303712x13403555186334

Council of the European Union. (1998). Council Directive 98/58/EC of 20 July 1998 concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes Official Journal of the European Communities, L 221 0023 - 0027.

Council of the European Union. (1999). Council Directive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 203, 53–57.

De Jonge, J., & Van Trijp, J. C. M. (2013). The impact of broiler production system practices on consumer perceptions of animal welfare. Poultry Science, 92(12), 3080-3095. doi:10.3382/ps.2013-03334

EFSA. (2011). Scientific Opinion on Campylobacter in broiler meat production: control options and performance objectives and/or targets at different stages of the food chain. EFSA Journal, 9(4), 2105. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2105

1

CHAPTER 1

18

EFSA. (2012). Update of the monitoring of levels of dioxins and PCBs in food and feed. EFSA Journal, 10(7), 82. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2832

EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare, More, S., Bicout, D., Bøtner, A., Butterworth, A., Calistri, P., . . . Stegeman, J. A. (2017). Avian influenza. EFSA Journal, 15(10), 4991. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2017.4991

Eurobarometer. (2005). Attitudes of consumers towards the welfare of farmed animals (229). Brussels, Belgium. Retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/ebs/ebs_229_en.pdf

Farm Animal Welfare Council.(2009) Farm Animal Welfare in Great Britain: Past, Present and Future; FAWC. London, UK. Retrieved from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fawc-report-on-farm-animal-welfare-in-great-britain-past-present-and-future

Fife-Schaw, C., & Rowe, G. (1996). Public Perceptions of Everyday Food Hazards: A Psychometric Study. Risk Analysis, 16(4), 487-500. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1996.tb01095.x

Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., & Johnson, S. M. (2000). The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13(1), 1-17.

Fraser, D., Weary, D. M., Pajor, E. A., & Milligan, B. N. (1997). A scientific conception of animal welfare that reflects ethical concerns. Animal Welfare, 6(3), 187-205.

Freire, R., & Cowling, A. (2013). The welfare of laying hens in conventional cages and alternative systems: First steps towards a quantitative comparison. Animal Welfare, 22(1), 57-65. doi:10.7120/09627286.22.1.057

Frewer, L. J., Shepherd, R., & Sparks, P. (1994). Biotechnology and food production: knowledge and perceived risk. British Food Journal, 96(9), 26-32.

Golden, J. B., & Arbona, D. V. (2012). Intensive versus extensive management systems in commercial egg production. CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources, 7, 1-12. doi:10.1079/PAVSNNR20127050

Gonzales, J. L., Stegeman, J. A., Koch, G., de Wit, S. J., & Elbers, A. R. W. (2013). Rate of introduction of a low pathogenic avian influenza virus infection in different poultry production sectors in the Netherlands. Influenza and other Respiratory Viruses, 7(1), 6-10. doi:10.1111/j.1750-2659.2012.00348.x

Hansen, J. W., Holm, L., Frewer, L., Robinson, P., & Sandøe, P. (2003). Beyond the knowledge deficit: recent research into lay and expert attitudes to food risks. Appetite, 41(2), 111-121. doi:10.1016/S0195-6663(03)00079-5

Harrison, R. (1964). Animal machines: the new factory farming industry. London: Vincent Stuart Ltd.

Heuer, O. E., Pedersen, K., Andersen, J., & Madsen, M. (2001). Prevalence and antimicrobial susceptibility of thermophilic Campylobacter in organic and conventional broiler flocks. Letters in Applied Microbiology, 33(4), 269-274. doi:10.1046/j.1472-765X.2001.00994.x

Holt, P. S., Davies, R. H., Dewulf, J., Gast, R. K., Huwe, J. K., Jones, D. R., . . . Willian, K. R. (2011). The impact of different housing systems on egg safety and quality. Poultry Science, 90(1), 251-262. doi:10.3382/ps.2010-00794

Jensen, K. K., Lassen, J., Robinson, P., & Sandøe, P. (2005). Lay and expert perceptions of zoonotic risks: understanding conflicting perspectives in the light of moral theory. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 99(3), 245-255. doi:10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2004.09.004

Kijlstra, A., Meerburg, B. G., & Bos, A. P. (2009). Food Safety in Free-Range and Organic Livestock Systems: Risk Management and Responsibility. Journal of Food Protection, 72(12), 2629-2637.

Kijlstra, A., Traag, W. A., & Hoogenboom, L. A. P. (2007). Effect of Flock Size on Dioxin Levels in Eggs from Chickens Kept Outside. Poultry Science, 86(9), 2042-2048.

Knight, S., & Barnett, L. (2008). Justifying attitudes toward animal use: A qualitative study of people's views and beliefs. Anthrozoös, 21(1), 31-42.


19

Koch, G., & Elbers, A. R. W. (2006). Outdoor ranging of poultry: a major risk factor for the introduction and development of High-Pathogenicity Avian Influenza. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 54(2), 179-194. doi:10.1016/s1573-5214(06)80021-7

Lay Jr, D. C., Fulton, R. M., Hester, P. Y., Karcher, D. M., Kjaer, J. B., Mench, J. A., . . . Porter, R. E. (2011). Hen welfare in different housing systems. Poultry Science, 90(1), 278-294. doi:10.3382/ps.2010-00962

Mepham, B. (2000a). A framework for the ethical analysis of novel foods: The ethical matrix. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 12(2), 165-176.

Mepham, B. (2000b). "Würde der kreatur" and the common morality. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 13(1-2), 65-78.

Mollenhorst, H., Berentsen, P. B., & De Boer, I. J. (2006). On-farm quantification of sustainability indicators: an application to egg production systems. British Poultry Science, 47(4), 405-417. doi:10.1080/00071660600829282

Pussemier, L., Mohimont, L., Huyghebaert, A., & Goeyens, L. (2004). Enhanced levels of dioxins in eggs from free range hens; a fast evaluation approach. Talanta, 63(5), 1273-1276. doi:10.1016/j.talanta.2004.05.031

Rodenburg, T. B., De Reu, K., & Tuyttens, F. A. M. (2012). Performance, welfare, health and hygiene of laying hens in non-cage systems in comparison with cage systems Alternative Systems for Poultry: Health, Welfare and Productivity (pp. 210-124).

Rodenburg, T. B., Tuyttens, F. A. M., de Reu, K., Herman, L., Zoons, J., & Sonck, B. (2008). Welfare assessment of laying hens in furnished cages and non-cage systems: Assimilating expert opinion. Animal Welfare, 17(4), 355-361.

Rodenburg, T. B., Van Der Hulst-Van Arkel, M. C., & Kwakkel, R. P. (2004). Campylobacter and Salmonella infections on organic broiler farms. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 52(2), 101-108.

Rollin, B. E. (2004). Annual Meeting Keynote Address: Animal agriculture and emerging social ethics for animals. Journal of Animal Science, 82(3), 955-964.

Rollin, B. E. (2007). Cultural variation, animal welfare and telos. Animal Welfare, 16(SUPPL.), 129-133.

Rosenquist, H., Boysen, L., Krogh, A. L., Jensen, A. N., & Nauta, M. (2013). Campylobacter contamination and the relative risk of illness from organic broiler meat in comparison with conventional broiler meat. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 162(3), 226-230. doi:10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2013.01.022

Schoeters, G., & Hoogenboom, R. (2006). Contamination of free-range chicken eggs with dioxins and dioxin-like polychlorinated biphenyls. Molecular Nutrition & Food Research, 50(10), 908-914. doi:10.1002/mnfr.200500201

Shimmura, T., Hirahara, S., Azuma, T., Suzuki, T., Eguchi, Y., Uetake, K., & Tanaka, T. (2010). Multi-factorial investigation of various housing systems for laying hens. British Poultry Science, 51(1), 31-42. doi:10.1080/0007166090342116

Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2007). The affect heuristic. European Journal of Operational Research, 177(3), 1333-1352. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2005.04.006

Sommer, H. M., Heuer, O. E., Sørensen, A. I. V., & Madsen, M. (2013). Analysis of factors important for the occurrence of Campylobacter in Danish broiler flocks. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 111(1-2), 100-111. doi:10.1016/j.prevetmed.2013.04.004

Spoelstra, S. F., Groot Koerkamp, P. W. G., Bos, A. P., Elzen, B., & Leenstra, F. R. (2013). Innovation for sustainable egg production: Realigning production with societal demands in The Netherlands. World's Poultry Science Journal, 69(2), 279-298. doi:10.1017/S0043933913000305

Te Velde, H., Aarts, N., & Van Woerkum, C. (2002). Dealing with ambivalence: Farmers' and consumers' perceptions of animal welfare in livestock breeding. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 15(2), 203-219. doi:10.1023/A:1015012403331

1

CHAPTER 1

20

Tuyttens, F., Vanhonacker, F., & Verbeke, W. (2014). Broiler production in Flanders, Belgium: Current situation and producers' opinions about animal welfare. World's Poultry Science Journal, 70(2), 343-354.

Van de Weerd, H., & Sandilands, V. (2008). Bringing the issue of animal welfare to the public: A biography of Ruth Harrison (1920 - 2000). Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 113(4), 404-410. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2008.01.014

Van Overmeire, I., Pussemier, L., Hanot, V., De Temmerman, L., Hoenig, M., & Goeyens, L. (2006). Chemical contamination of free-range eggs from Belgium. Food Additives & Contaminants, 23(11), 1109-1122. doi:10.1080/02652030600699320

Van Overmeire, I., Pussemier, L., Waegeneers, N., Hanot, V., Windal, I., Boxus, L., . . . Goeyens, L. (2009). Assessment of the chemical contamination in home-produced eggs in Belgium: General overview of the CONTEGG study. Science of the Total Environment, 407(15), 4403-4410. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.10.066

Vanhonacker, F., Verbeke, W., Van Poucke, E., Pieniak, Z., Nijs, G., & Tuyttens, F. A. M. (2012). The Concept of Farm Animal Welfare: Citizen Perceptions and Stakeholder Opinion in Flanders, Belgium. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 25(1), 79-101. doi:10.1007/s10806-010-9299-6

Vanhonacker, F., Verbeke, W., Van Poucke, E., & Tuyttens, F. A. M. (2008). Do citizens and farmers interpret the concept of farm animal welfare differently? Livestock Science, 116(1-3), 126-136. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2007.09.017

Weary, D. M., Ventura, B. A., & Von Keyserlingk, M. A. G. (2016). Societal views and animal welfare science: Understanding why the modified cage may fail and other stories. Animal, 10(2), 309-317. doi:10.1017/S1751731115001160

Mariska va

Perceptions of laying hen husbandry: a survey

among citizens, poultry farmers and veterinarians

2 To be submitted

van Asselt

M. van Asselt1,2, E.D. Ekkel3,

B. Kemp2 and E.N. Stassen2

1 Department of Applied Research, Aeres

University of Applied Sciences Dronten,

De Drieslag 4, 8251 JZ Dronten, the

Netherlands; 2 Adaptation Physiology Group,

Department of Animal Sciences,

Wageningen University & Research, P.O.

Box 338, 6700 AH, Wageningen, the

Netherlands; 3 Department of Applied Research, Aeres

University of Applied Sciences Almere,

Stadhuisplein 40, 1315 XA Almere, the

Netherlands.

24

ABSTRACT

Different perceptions of issues, such as hen welfare and public health risks, may lead

to conflicting perceptions of the best husbandry system for laying hens. Insight into

these perceptions may help to address societal concerns about hen husbandry. To this

end, perceptions of the best hen husbandry system and the importance of 10 issues of

laying hen husbandry were studied in three stakeholder groups in the Netherlands:

poultry farmers (n = 100), poultry veterinarians (n = 41) and citizens (n = 2259). Most

citizens (73%) perceived an outdoor system as the best system, while most farmers

(71%) and veterinarians (93%) perceived an indoor system as the best husbandry

system. Citizens perceived the issues ‘natural needs of hens’ and ‘environmentally

friendly’ as more important and the issues ‘hen health’, ‘farmer income’ and ‘hens lay

many eggs’ as less important than did farmers and veterinarians. The issues ‘food

safety’ and ‘public health’ were perceived important by the three groups. Citizens’

preference for a more extensive system was associated with a higher importance of

‘hen welfare’, ‘natural needs of hens’ and ‘environmentally friendly', and a lower

importance of ‘hens lay many eggs’, ‘farmer income’ and ‘hens lay many eggs’. Being

female citizen and experience with animals was associated with the preference for an

outdoor system. Moral values may underlie the different perceptions within and

between stakeholder groups. Interactive multi-stakeholder design methods, which

addresses stakeholders’ perceptions and values, seem a suitable way to design

husbandry systems which address societal concerns.

Key words: animal welfare, laying hen husbandry, perceptions, public health,

stakeholders, survey

25

INTRODUCTION

From the 1950s onwards, more intensive husbandry systems for farm animals were

developed to produce sufficient amounts of food at low cost prices. Keeping laying

hens evolved from hens kept in backyard flocks on mixed family farms to hens kept in

indoor battery cages on specialised farms (Golden et al., 2012; Rollin, 2004). The

number of hens per farm and egg production rates increased substantially (Golden et

al., 2012; Spoelstra et al., 2013). From the 1970s onwards, as a consequence of the

changed way of keeping and treating production animals, attitudes in society

regarding animals changed (Rollin, 2004). People became more concerned about

animal welfare (Harper et al., 2001; Rollin, 2007) and specifically about animals, such

as laying hens, kept in intensive systems (European Commission, 2005).

These public concerns gave rise to a ban on conventional battery cages in the European

Union from January 2012, and stimulated the development of alternative and more

animal-friendly husbandry systems for laying hens. Current laying hen husbandry

systems in the EU range from intensive, indoor systems, such as furnished cages and

non-cage systems, to more extensive systems, such as free-range systems and organic

systems with outdoor access. These various husbandry systems perform differently on

issues such as public health, food safety, environmental impact and animal welfare

(Mollenhorst et al., 2006).

Animal welfare is a multidimensional concept and various definitions are used to

define good animal welfare (Fraser, 1995). Concepts of animal welfare often refer to

the five freedoms, based on the Brambell report (1965). The five freedoms are basic

principles to ensure a minimal level of animal welfare and are often used as a

framework for animal welfare legislation and welfare assessment methods (Botreau et

al., 2007). Several assessment methods have been developed and used to assess hen

welfare in different husbandry systems (Botreau et al., 2007; Rodenburg et al., 2008;

Shimmura et al., 2011). According to welfare assessments, hens kept in furnished

cages and in indoor non-cage systems score better on freedom from pain, injuries, and

diseases than those kept in outdoor systems (Lay Jr et al., 2011; Shimmura et al., 2011;

Shimmura et al., 2010). However, hens in indoor systems, especially in cage systems,

have restricted space and choice (Freire et al., 2013; Lay Jr et al., 2011; Mollenhorst et

al., 2006). Hens with outdoor access have more opportunities to perform natural

2

26

behaviour and they show for example more comfort behaviour, such as wing flapping,

tail-flapping, leg-stretching and dust-bathing than hens in kept in indoor systems

(Freire et al., 2013; Lay Jr et al., 2011; Shimmura et al., 2010). Although various

husbandry systems perform on different welfare aspects as the best, the more

extensive systems, especially those with outdoor access, could benefit hen welfare

(Hegelund et al., 2006; Knierim, 2006; Shimmura et al., 2011; Shimmura et al., 2010).

Questions have been raised about public health and food safety risks related to keeping

hens in outdoor systems (Hovi et al., 2003; Kijlstra et al., 2006; Kijlstra et al., 2009).

Hens in outdoor runs have more contact with the outdoor environment and with

domestic or wild animals. The use of outdoor runs therefore, results firstly in an

increased risk of transmission of pathogens, such as the zoonotic pathogen Avian

Influenza, from wild birds to laying hens (Gonzales et al., 2013; Koch et al., 2006).

Secondly, in outdoors runs there is an increased risk of an uptake by hens of

contaminants such as dioxin, causing higher dioxin levels in eggs (De Vries et al.,

2006; Schoeters et al., 2006).

Moreover, there is controversy about the environmental impact of both intensive and

extensive systems relating to issues such as global warming, energy use, land

occupation, phosphorus balance, nitrogen balance, acidification, and feed conversion

(Dekker et al., 2011; Leinonen et al., 2014). For example, cage system perform better

on land occupation, and phosphorus balance than outdoor systems, while outdoor

systems perform better on global warming potential and energy use than indoor

systems (Dekker et al., 2011). It may be concluded that each husbandry system has

strengths and weaknesses regarding issues such as hen health and welfare, food

safety, public health and environmental impact (Mollenhorst et al., 2006). On top of

that, these issues are subject of societal concern (Hansen et al., 2003; Harper et al.,

2001; Verbeke et al., 2000).

Current husbandry systems are developed based on input from animal scientists taking

into account economic, environmental and social issues, such as farmer income,

environmental impact, animal health and welfare, product quality and public concerns

(Mollenhorst et al., 2006). The various husbandry systems for laying hens as

mentioned above have evolved based on variations in how these issues of laying hen

husbandry are balanced, which in turn depends on the importance of the individual

27

issues. People form their perceptions of such issues corresponding to their frame of

reference. Frames of reference are shaped by people’s values, convictions, norms,

experience and knowledge (Te Velde et al., 2002), which results in different

perceptions among people, such as farmers and citizens. For example, it has been

shown that citizens and farmers differ in their perceptions of animal welfare (Te Velde

et al., 2002; Vanhonacker et al., 2008). Consequently, they perceive the importance of

aspects of animal welfare, such as animal health, growth and production rate, and

natural behaviour, differently (Fraser et al., 1997; Vanhonacker et al., 2012). Likewise,

citizens and experts on public health, such as veterinarians, perceive public health and

food safety risks differently (Hansen et al., 2003; Jensen et al., 2005). Thus, the

perception of the importance of various issues of hen husbandry may differ between

citizens and those involved in hen husbandry, such as farmers and veterinarians.

These different perceptions may lead to conflicting views on which husbandry system

is the best system for laying hen husbandry.

Taking into consideration stakeholder views is a prerequisite for adjusting or

designing animal husbandry systems that are supported by society (Boogaard et al.,

2011; Weary et al., 2016). Current laying hen husbandry systems do not address in an

integrated way the various concerns of stakeholder groups such as farmers,

veterinarians and citizens (Weary et al., 2016). Insight into stakeholder perceptions

regarding hen husbandry could provide knowledge that may help to address the

concerns on hen husbandry. In the context of laying hen husbandry, no studies have

analysed how multiple stakeholder groups perceive multiple issues of hen husbandry

and whether these issues can explain the preference for a certain husbandry system.

Therefore, the objective of this study was to get insight into current perceptions of

laying hen husbandry of three stakeholder groups: citizens, poultry farmers, and

poultry veterinarians. This paper first explores which system the three stakeholder

groups perceive as the best system for laying hen husbandry, based on their current

knowledge. Secondly, it examines the importance given to issues of laying hen

husbandry by the three stakeholder groups. Thirdly, it analyses the relation between

the perceived best husbandry system and the perceived importance of issues of laying

hen husbandry. Finally, the study explores the influence of socio-demographic

characteristics of citizens on their preference for a certain husbandry system.

2

28

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Questionnaire

A quantitative survey was conducted by means of an online questionnaire to collect

data concerning perceptions of laying hen husbandry from three stakeholder groups.

The questionnaire included a question regarding the best laying hen husbandry

system, a question regarding the importance of issues of laying husbandry, and

questions regarding socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents. The

questionnaire was developed based on literature review and stakeholder input.

Stakeholder input was provided by a consulting group consisting of experts and

representatives of different stakeholder groups (citizens, poultry farmers and poultry

veterinarians), which gave input on the questionnaire.

The first question was ’Which laying hen husbandry system do you think is the best?’.

Participants could choose the best system from four EU-recognized husbandry systems

common in the Netherlands: indoor colony cages for groups of hens, an indoor non-

cage system, a free-range system with outdoor access, and an organic system with

outdoor access. The participants were not provided with any descriptions of the

husbandry systems, because the objective was to get insight into current perceptions,

regardless these perceptions were based on detailed knowledge about laying hen

husbandry. Providing new information might change the existing perceptions of the

participants (Boogaard et al., 2011; Sturgis et al., 2010; Te Velde et al., 2002) and will

cause a higher drop-out of less educated people (Sturgis et al., 2010). The names for

the systems used in the questionnaire are the names that EU egg codes on eggs refer

to. In the Netherlands, these names are commonly used in the communication about

hen husbandry or the origin of eggs. The consulting group gave input on the

formulation of the question and the husbandry systems. A pilot study revealed that the

respondents were familiar with these names and the husbandry systems. Nevertheless,

some respondents might not be acquainted with the husbandry systems or might not

be able to decide which system is the best, and therefore an answer option ‘I do not

know’ was included.

The second question concerned the importance of 10 issues related to different aspects

of laying hen husbandry. Two criteria were used to select the issues from literature.

Firstly, the issue has been considered a subject of societal concern, and secondly,

29

according to literature the issue has been considered as important for sustainable

development (Bergstra et al., 2015; Bergstra et al., 2017; Castellini et al., 2012; De

Boer et al., 2002; Dekker et al., 2011; Harper et al., 2001; Heng et al., 2013; Kanis et

al., 2003; Lebacq et al., 2013; Leinonen et al., 2014; McGlone, 2001; Meuwissen et al.,

2005; Mollenhorst et al., 2006; Mollenhorst et al., 2004; Thompson et al., 2011;

Vanhonacker et al., 2009; Verbeke et al., 2000; Xin et al., 2011). The consulting group

provided input on the selected issues. As a result, 10 issues were included in the

questionnaire (Table 2.3). The question was: “How important do you think the

following issues are for laying hen husbandry?” The participants could rate the

importance of the 10 issues on a five-point Likert scale ranging from very unimportant

(-2) to very important (2).

The last part of the questionnaire consisted of questions on the socio-demographic

characteristics of the participants. Socio-demographic characteristics, which according

to literature are associated with perceptions of animal husbandry, were selected from

literature. The following variables were included: gender, age, educational level,

urbanization level of current residence, childhood residence, having children, pet

ownership, frequency of meat consumption and whether they donate to a nature or

animal welfare organisation (Bergstra et al., 2017; Boogaard et al., 2006; Cohen et al.,

2012; Harper et al., 2001; Kendall et al., 2006; Knight et al., 2004; Liu et al., 2014;

Slovic, 1999; Tuyttens et al., 2010; Vanhonacker et al., 2010; Vanhonacker et al., 2009;

Vanhonacker et al., 2007; Xiao et al., 2015). Before the survey was carried out, the

questionnaire was pilot tested for comprehensibility and clarity of the questions in

three citizens, two poultry farmers, and two veterinarians. The questionnaire was then

further optimised based on these results.

Participants

The survey was done among Dutch citizens, poultry farmers, and poultry veterinarians

through March and April 2014. Because citizens, without being necessarily consumers,

participate in the public debate about the laying hen husbandry (Harvey et al., 2013),

we researched people in their role of citizen. Citizens were approached by CentERdata

(www.centerdata.nl), a research institute specialised in online survey research by

means of the CentERpanel. The CentERpanel is a representative sample of the Dutch

population. CentERdata approached 3344 CentERpanel citizens, of whom 2373 (71.0%)

2

30

started to fill in the questionnaire and 2259 citizens (67.6%) completed the

questionnaire. Veterinarians registered with the Section Poultry Health (VGP) of the

Royal Veterinary Association of the Netherlands (n=144) were invited in an e-mail

from CentERdata to fill in the online questionnaire. Of this registered group 51

(35.4%) completed the questionnaire. Of these 51 respondents, 40 met our definition

of poultry veterinarian – someone working more than 30% of their time as a

veterinarian in the poultry sector – and were included for analysis. Poultry farmers

were invited to fill in the questionnaire by a digital newsletter of the Dutch

organization of poultry farmers (NOP), which was sent to approximately 3,000 people

interested in poultry production. We also posted articles on websites dealing with

poultry production, such as the website of the Dutch poultry magazine

(Pluimveehouderij1) and a website on agriculture in general. These newsletter and

websites were freely available. One hundred poultry farmers completed the

questionnaire.

The socio-demographic characteristics of the participants are presented in Table 2.1.

The citizen sample has been compared with the data of the CBS Statistics Netherlands

(2014). The citizen sample had a slightly higher proportion of males, in the over-55

age group, and of highly educated people. Poultry farmers and veterinarians were

mainly male, which is a normal representation for these professional groups.

Table 2.1 Socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents from the three stakeholder groups

Citizens (n = 2259)

Poultry farmers (n= 100)

Poultry veterinarians (n = 41) CBS1

Gender (%) Male 52.2 88.0 80.5 49.2 Female 47.8 12.0 19.5 50.8

Age (%) 15 - 34 years 16.6 11.0 12.2 29.3 35 - 54 years 36.8 73.0 51.2 34.2 > 55 years 46.6 16.0 36.6 36.5

Education (%) Low 26.7 28.0 0.0 30.9 Intermediate 29.3 43.0 0.0 41.0 High (Bachelor / Master) 44.0 29.0 100.0 28.1

1 Data from CBS Statistics Netherlands dated 01-03-2014

1 Poultry production: a professional journal for the poultry production sector.

31

Data analyses

Data were analysed using SPSS 19.0. The effect of the three stakeholder groups and of

the socio-demographic characteristics on the perceived best husbandry system were

analysed by calculating Pearson’s Chi-square. The association between mean

importance scores for the 10 issues and (1) stakeholder group, and (2) the perceived

best system was explored by analysis of variances (ANOVA). We assumed that

intervals between each item category of the Likert-scales (ranging from -2 to 2) is

equal and therefore, calculation of means and One-way ANOVA was done (Carifio et

al., 2008). ANOVA was performed if variances were homogeneous according to

Levene’s test. If variances were not homogeneous, the Welch test was used instead. If

the effect of the stakeholder groups or the best husbandry system on the mean

importance scores was significant, the post-hoc Games-Howell test for multiple

comparisons was done to analyse differences between individual stakeholder groups

or husbandry systems.

To further analyse the importance of the 10 issues on shared variance and the

presence of latent underlying constructs an explanatory factor analysis, Principal Axis

with Direct Oblimin rotation, was performed. A Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of

sampling adequacy (KMO) above 0.5 was considered adequate (Field, 2013).

Constructs with eigenvalue of 1.0 or higher (Kaiser Criterion) were considered

important and included in the analysis. The rotated factor loadings were used to value

the constructs. In case of a high rotated factor loading of an issue for a construct, the

issue was assigned to that construct. It resulted in three constructs: two constructs

consisting of three and one construct consisting of four issues. To analyse the

reliability of these three constructs, the Cronbach’s alpha was calculated. We created

new values for the constructs by computing the importance scores for the individual

issues assigned to a specific construct and dividing this total by the number of issues

(three or four) assigned to the construct.

2

32

RESULTS

Best laying hen husbandry system

The citizens’ stakeholder group selected a different husbandry system from the other

two groups as the best system for laying hen husbandry (χ2(8) = 494.52, p < 0.001,

Table 2.2). About half of the citizens selected the free-range system as the best system,

whereas about half of the poultry farmers and poultry veterinarians selected the

indoor non-cage system as the best system. Of the citizens, 12.3% indicated not to

know which system is the best husbandry system. One farmer indicated not to know

which system is the best. Most farmers selected the husbandry system that they

practise themselves (64%).

Table 2.2 Best laying hen husbandry system according to citizens (n = 2259), poultry farmers (n = 100) and poultry veterinarians (n = 41)

Citizens Poultry farmers Poultry veterinarians

n % n % n %

Colony cages 62 2.7 28 28.0 18 43.9 Indoor non-cage 272 12.0 51 51.0 20 48.8 Free-range 1162 51.4 10 10.0 3 7.3 Organic 485 21.5 10 10.0 0 - I do not know 278 12.3 1 1.0 0 -

Importance of issues

Table 2.3 shows how respondents rated the importance of 10 issues of laying hen

husbandry. Mean scores for the 10 issues varied from - 0.26 to 1.80. The three

stakeholder groups perceived ‘cheap eggs’ equally as the least important issue and

‘food safety’ and ‘hen health’ as the most important issues. The mean scores of citizens

for ‘hen welfare’ and for ‘food safety’ did not differ from the mean scores of farmers

and veterinarians for the same issues. Compared to farmers and veterinarians, citizens

scored ‘hen health’, ‘farmer income’ and ‘hens lay many eggs’ significantly lower, and

‘environmentally friendly’ significantly higher. The mean scores for the issues ‘taste of

eggs’ and ‘risks to human health’ differed significantly between citizens and farmers,

but did not differ between citizens and veterinarians.

33

Table 2.3 Mean importance of 10 issues of laying hen husbandry according to citizens, poultry farmers, and poultry veterinarians (-2 = very unimportant; 2 = very important)

Citizens Farmers Veterinarians Issues n = 2259 n = 100 n = 41 Test statistics p-value Hen health 1.33a 1.77b 1.80b F(2, 84.40) = 45.43 < 0.001 Hen welfare 1.16 1.13 1.17 F(2, 2379) = 0.06 0.944 Meet natural needs of hens 1.02a 0.72b 0.51b F(2, 79.08) = 11.45 < 0.001 Environmental friendly 1.05a 0.66b 0.61b F(2, 78.96) = 12.34 < 0.001 Food safety 1.51 1.67 1.68 F(2, 80.95) = 4.31 0.017 Risks to human health 1.21a 0.86b 0.88 F(2, 78.15) = 6.04 0.004 Taste of eggs 1.17a 1.40b 0.98a F(2, 80.17) = 5.46 0.004 Cheap eggs - 0.09 - 0.26 - 0.12 F(2, 2379) = 0.86 0.429 Farmer income 0.48a 1.51b 1.22c F(2, 82.97) = 140.11 < 0.001 Hens lay many eggs 0.07a 1.22b 1.17b F(2, 2379) = 100.26 < 0.001

a,b,c Means within rows with different superscripts differ significantly at p < 0.05 (Post-hoc Games Howell multiple comparisons test)

Relation between issues and the best system

Table 2.4 provides insight into the relation between the choice of the best husbandry

system and how citizens perceive the importance of the issues of laying hen

husbandry. Because the number of poultry farmers and veterinarians in the sample

was limited and their view was predominantly that indoor systems were the best, this

relation was not analysed for these two stakeholder groups. There was a significant

effect of the importance scores on the chosen best system for all 10 issues. The mean

importance given by citizens for ‘hen health’, ‘hen welfare’, ‘system meets natural

needs of hens’ and ‘environmentally friendly’ was higher when they chose a less

intensive system to be the best. In contrast, mean scores for the issues ‘cheap eggs’,

‘farmer income’, and ‘hens lay many eggs’ were lower when citizens considered a less

intensive system to be the best. The mean scores for the issues ‘food safety’ and ‘taste

of eggs’ did not differ significantly among the groups that chose a best system. The

mean score for ‘risks to human health’ did not differ among citizens who favoured the

colony cages, the indoor non-cage system, the free-range system or indicated not to

know which system was the best, but citizens who favoured the organic system scored

‘risks to human health’ higher than the other groups. The group, which indicated not

to know which of the husbandry systems was the best, had a smaller range in scores

than groups that chose a system. This ‘I do not know’ group scored the importance of

the issues similar to the two groups of citizens who indicated the colony cages

respectively the indoor non-cage system as the best system.

2

34

Table 2.4 Mean importance of 10 issues of laying hen husbandry in relation to perceived best husbandry systems in citizens (-2 = very unimportant; 2 = very important)

Colony cages

Indoor non-cage

Free-range Organic

I do not know

Issues n = 62 n = 272 n = 1162 n = 485 n = 278 Test statistics p-value

Hen health 0.55a 1.12b 1.37c 1.66d 0.97ab F(4, 342.07) = 62.69 < 0.001

Hen welfare 0.08a 0.83b 1.21c 1.55d 0.81b F(4, 345.18) = 89.16 < 0.001

Meet natural needs of hens 0.02a 0.64b 1.08c 1.41d 0.72b F(4, 346.96) = 89.16 < 0.001

Environmentally friendly 0.34a 0.71b 1.07c 1.47d 0.73b F(4, 350.44) = 79.59 < 0.001

Food safety 1.40 1.47a 1.56a 1.58a 1.27b F(4, 344.33) = 8.18 < 0.001

Risks to human health 0.90a 1.13a 1.21a 1.36b 1.05a F(4, 2254 ) = 9.24 < 0.001

Taste of eggs 0.94 1.21a 1.21a 1.23a 0.95b F(4, 2254) = 8.51 < 0.001

Cheap eggs 0.97a 0.39b -0.10c -0.66d 0.24b F(4, 2254) = 83.45 < 0.001

Farmer income 0.45 0.62a 0.54a 0.36b 0.33b F(4, 2254) = 8.01 < 0.001

Hens lay many eggs 0.89a 0.40b 0.10c -0.35d 0.19c F(4, 355.70) = 49.31 < 0.001 a, b, c, d Means within rows with different superscripts differ significantly at p < 0.05 (Post-hoc Games Howell multiple comparisons test)

Constructs

To explore whether the issues cluster on underlying latent constructs, a factor analysis

was performed on the 10 issues. Sufficient data were available only for citizens,

therefore the factor analysis was only done on those data (Table 2.5). The constructs

met the statistical criteria (Field, 2013): total Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of sample

adequacy was above 0.5 (0.83), Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant p < 0.001),

and the individual KMO values for the issues were above 0.5 (minimum 0.61). Three

constructs with an eigenvalue equal to or above 1.0 (Kaiser’s criterion) could be

selected. Together, these three constructs explained 66.5% of the variance.

The first construct, animal and environmental interests’, including ‘hen welfare’, ‘meet

natural needs of hens’, ‘hen health’ and ‘environmentally friendly’, explained 38.4% of

the variance. The second construct, consisting of the economic interests, clusters ‘hens

lay many eggs’, ‘cheap eggs’ and ‘farmer income’, explained 18.0% of the variance. The

third construct, consumer interests, clustering ‘food safety’, ‘risk to human health’ and

‘taste of eggs’ explained 10.0% of the variance. Reliability was good for the construct

‘animal and environment interests’ (α = 0.88), reasonable for the construct ‘consumer

interests’ (α = 0.70), and weak for the construct ‘economic interests’ (α = 0.56).

35

Table 2.5 Rotated factor loadings of importance of 10 issues of laying hen husbandry for three constructs, percentage of variance explained, and Cronbach’s alpha

Rotated factor loadings Animal and environmental interests

Economic interests

Consumer Interests

Issues Hen welfare 0.911 -0.02 0.02 Meets natural needs of hens 0.81 -0.03 -0.01 Hen health 0.67 -0.01 -0.19 Environmentally friendly 0.67 -0.02 -0.12 Hens lay many eggs -0.07 0.73 0.03 Cheap eggs -0.30 0.57 -0.06 Farmer income 0.20 0.37 -0.01 Food safety -0.09 -0.06 -0.96 Risks to human health 0.08 -0.02 -0.55 Taste of eggs 0.15 0.17 -0.45

Statistical criteria Eigenvalues 3.85 1.80 1.00 Percentage of total variance explained 38.5 18.0 10.0 Cumulative percentage of variance explained 38.5 56.5 66.5 Cronbach's α 0.88 0.56 0.70

1 Issues with factor loadings above 0.30 load strongly on a factor and are in bold

Relation between constructs and the best system

The relation between the importance scores for the three constructs and the

preference for a certain husbandry system as explored in citizens is presented in

Figure 2.1. The mean scores for the constructs ‘animal and environment’, and

‘economic interests’ differed significantly between the husbandry systems. The

construct ‘animal and environment’ is positively associated with the perception that a

more extensive husbandry system is the best system. The construct ‘economic

interests’ is negatively associated with the perception that a more extensive husbandry

system is the best. The scores for the construct ‘consumer interests’ only differed

significantly between organic on the one hand and colony cage and free-range on the

other. The scores for the construct ‘consumer interests’ did not differ significantly

between colony cages, indoor non-cage systems, and free-range systems.

2

36

Figure 2.1 Mean importance scores of three constructs in relation to the preferred husbandry system by citizens (-2 = very unimportant, 2 = very important) a, b, c, d Means within a construct with different superscripts differ significantly at p < 0.05 (Post-hoc Games Howell multiple comparisons test)

Socio-demographic characteristics

To determine the role of socio-demographic characteristics, the influence of such

characteristics on the choice of the best system was analysed (Table 2.6). This was

only presented for citizens, because the numbers of farmers and veterinarians were

small, and variation in their socio-demographic characteristics and perceptions, were

limited. All socio-demographic characteristics in citizens, except for that of ‘having

children’, were significantly associated with the perceived best system. Being female,

highly educated, consuming meat less than six times a week, and donating to a nature

or animal welfare organization were associated with the choice for a less intensive

system. Age, urbanization, childhood residence, having children or not, and pet

ownership were found to be significantly associated with the perceived best system,

However, the effect of these socio-demographic characteristics on the perceived best

system did not point into one clear direction and were difficult to interpret.

39

DISCUSSION

Introduction

Stakeholders’ perceptions of the best laying hen husbandry system were studied by

means of a survey among citizens, poultry farmers, and poultry veterinarians.

Additionally, the importance of issues of laying hen husbandry, both subject of societal

concern and important for sustainable development, and the association with the

perceived best system, was analysed. The objective was to get insight into current

perceptions of laying hen husbandry based on their current knowledge. New

information may influence perceptions and therefore no information about laying hen

husbandry was provided to the participants in the questionnaire. It implies that

answers may have been based on limited knowledge about laying hen husbandry.

However, lack of knowledge does neither mean that people do not have opinions

(Frewer et al., 1994), nor that perceptions are incorrect (Boogaard et al., 2011). People

shape their perceptions according to their frame of reference, which is influenced by

knowledge and experiences, but also by convictions, values, norms, and interests

(Boogaard et al., 2011; Te Velde et al., 2002). Respondents answered the questions

corresponding to their current frame of reference, which has been enhanced by the

fact that we did not describe a context for the questions. Consequently, different

participants may have considered the interests of laying hens, farmers, consumers,

and / or environment in a different way. This approach was chosen because the public

debate about laying hen husbandry is based on current perceptions of stakeholders.

The outcome of the public debate may influence adaptations of current hen husbandry

systems and the development of new husbandry systems.

Preferred husbandry system

Most citizens perceived an outdoor system, free-range or an organic system, as the

best husbandry system. In contrast, most poultry farmers and poultry veterinarians

perceived an indoor system, colony cages, or an indoor non-cage system, as the best

husbandry system. When interpreting the results, it should be considered that

respondents who are not familiar with the systems might have answered the question

based on the names of the systems and not based on the characteristics of the systems.

However, by adding the answer option ‘I do not know’ we encouraged respondents

who did not know the systems or had no opinion to choose for this option. Moreover,

2

40

the names of the husbandry systems used in the questionnaire are the conventional

names used in the Netherlands. Therefore, most respondents who did choose a best

system may have had some knowledge about the systems. The names of the systems

refer to how the hens are kept: in a cage, indoor non-cage, free-range or organic with

outdoor access. Therefore, it may be expected that especially citizens answered the

question focused on the interests of hens. However, further analyses suggest that

citizens considered multiple issues of hen husbandry when they selected the preferred

system.

Farmers and veterinarians, well acquainted with the husbandry systems, preferred the

indoor systems. Farmers focus on economic interests (Gocsik et al., 2015; Hansson et

al., 2014) and they prefer the husbandry system that they practise themselves (Benard

et al., 2013; Stadig et al., 2016; Stadig et al., 2015). In the Netherlands, most hens are

kept in indoor non-cage systems and this might explain why farmers mainly preferred

indoor systems. Compared to farmers, veterinarians selected a colony cage system as

the best system more often and, an outdoor system less often. Veterinarians’

perceptions of the systems may be based mainly on health considerations and they

may have selected the colony cage systems more often because these are considered

more hygienic than non-cage systems (Lay Jr et al., 2011). It may be concluded that the

frame of reference of the respondents of all three stakeholder groups has determined

to what extent issues were taken into account when selecting the best husbandry

system. Insight into which issues respondents perceived important may provide

information about their frame of reference.

Importance of issues

Citizens scored the importance of most issues differently from poultry farmers and

poultry veterinarians. The mean scores of citizens for the issues ‘hen welfare’, ‘food

safety’ and ‘cheap eggs’, however, did not differ from the mean scores of farmers and

veterinarians for these issues. Although all three stakeholder groups scored ‘hen

welfare’ not differently, citizens scored aspects of hen welfare, ‘hen health’, ‘hens lay

many eggs’ and ‘natural needs’, differently from farmers and veterinarians. Citizens

perceived the ‘natural needs of hens’ absolutely and relatively as more important than

farmers and veterinarians did, and ‘hen health’ and ‘hens lay many eggs’ as less

important than farmers and veterinarians. Regarding animal welfare, the differences

41

between the perceptions of citizens, and farmers and veterinarians are in accordance

with previous studies. Citizens view predominantly opportunities to express natural

behaviour important for animal welfare, while farmers and veterinarians perceive

good animal health and high production rate important for animal welfare (Fraser et

al., 1997; Te Velde et al., 2002; Vanhonacker et al., 2008). Farmers and veterinarians

view laying hen welfare in the broader context of laying hen husbandry and for them

hen welfare might be a way to achieve economic results (Hansson et al., 2014).

Citizens may have valued hen welfare for its own sake and focused on the interests of

the animals, such as the natural needs of the hens. Therefore, even though citizens,

farmers, and veterinarians in this study accorded the same importance to animal

welfare, they may hold different views on what is good or bad hen welfare. These

differences in the perceived importance of aspects of hen welfare might explain why

most citizens perceived the free-range system as the best system and poultry farmers

and veterinarians perceived the indoor non-cage system as the best system. Moreover,

citizens considered ‘environmentally friendly’ to be more important than did the other

groups, which might be related to the preference of citizens for the organic husbandry

system.

The three stakeholder groups perceived the issues ‘food safety’ and ‘risks to human

health’ as important. Previous research has shown that lay people – the predominant

group among citizens – perceive zoonotic food risks differently from food producers

and experts on food hazards (Hansen et al., 2003; Jensen et al., 2005). When looking

at aspects of food safety in practice, such as the use of antibiotics, stakeholders have

been shown to hold different views on the risks (Bergstra et al., 2015). For example, in

the study by Bergstra et al. (2015) regarding sow husbandry, farmers did not perceive

the use of antibiotics as a considerable risk. Although three groups gave the same

score to food safety, it does neither imply that citizens, farmers and veterinarians

perceive food safety equally, nor that they perceive the same level of food-related risks

as acceptable (Hansen et al., 2003).

Relation issues and best system

The analysis of the relation between the importance of ten issues of hen husbandry

and the best husbandry system shows that citizens cannot be regarded as one group.

On the one hand, citizens who viewed a more intensive system as the best system

2

42

perceived the issues related to economics, ‘cheap eggs’, farmer income,’ and ‘hens lay

many eggs’, as more important than citizens who chose a less intensive system as the

best system. On the other hand, citizens who viewed a less intensive system as the

best husbandry system perceived the issues ‘hen health’, ‘hen welfare’, ‘natural needs

of hens’ and ‘environmentally friendly’ as more important than citizens who selected a

more intensive system as the best husbandry system. The importance of the issues

‘risk to human health’, ‘food safety’, and ‘taste of eggs’ did not differ between the

systems, which means that these issues are not decisive for the choice of the best

system. The importance scores for the issues ‘hen health’, ‘hen welfare’, ‘natural needs

of hens’ and ‘environmental friendliness’ were inter-correlated and together they

constitute the construct ‘animal and environmental interests’. The importance scores

for the issues ‘hens lay many eggs’, ‘cheap eggs’ and ‘farmer income’ were also inter-

correlated and constitute the construct ‘economic interests’. The issues, which

constitute together a construct, may have a shared underlying value. Because

perceptions of animal husbandry, among other things, are influenced by moral values

(Fraser et al., 1997; Te Velde et al., 2002), moral values related to the interests of

animals, environment and producer might have been the underlying incentives to

select a particular husbandry system and to rate the importance of the issues of laying

hen husbandry.

Influence of socio-demographic characteristics

Female citizens selected an outdoor system as the best system more often than did

male citizens. This gender effect is in accordance with literature that consistently

indicates that more females than males are concerned about animal welfare (Cohen et

al., 2012; Kendall et al., 2006), and about environmental issues (Liu et al., 2014). It

has been suggested that females consider issues more from an emotional point of view

and value hens as living beings, whereas males view issues more from an economic

point of view (Cohen et al., 2012). It may indicate that, more than males, females

prioritize the interests of hens and the environment above the economic issues and

therefore more often selected an organic system as the best system. In contrast, males

may have put economic interests above the interests of animals and the environment,

and therefore more often viewed a more intensive, indoor system as the best system.

The literature indicates that perceptions people hold regarding animals are also

influenced by their experiences with animals (Boogaard et al., 2006; Te Velde et al.,

43

2002). This is confirmed in our study, which showed that pet ownership was

associated with selecting an outdoor system as the best system. Farming experiences,

such as grown up on a farm, was associated with the choice of an indoor system as the

best system. Regarding other socio-demographic factors, such as age, educational

level, urbanization level of residence or having children, the literature is not

consistent (Vanhonacker et al., 2009).

Conclusion and implications

This study showed that respondents from the three stakeholder groups had conflicting

opinions on the best husbandry system, which could be explained by the importance

given to issues of hen husbandry and by socio-demographic characteristics. Citizens

cannot be seen as one stakeholder group, but need to be considered as different groups

with affine perceptions. This suggests that various husbandry systems, considering

more or less the interests of hens, environment, farmers, and consumers, could exist

alongside with support of society. In the Netherlands, most laying hen husbandry

systems are indoor non-cage systems, but this study showed that most citizens

perceived a system with outdoor access as the best hen husbandry system. Citizens

who perceived an outdoor system as the best system, perceived aspects of hen welfare

as more important than did citizens who perceive indoor systems as the best system.

However, in the outdoor systems food safety might be compromised and public health

risks increased (Kijlstra et al., 2009). Future research should explore how alternative

systems could be designed, which provide hens more opportunities for natural

behaviour but minimally compromise with food safety and public health. These

alternative systems should be based on both technical performances of the systems, as

well as on stakeholder values. Interactive multi-stakeholder design methods, such as

used to develop Roundel, show that such design methods can be successful (Groot

Koerkamp et al., 2008; Spoelstra et al., 2013). In that way, husbandry systems could

be adapted or developed, which meet better with societal concerns and the interests of

hens, consumers, farmers and environment.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work was supported by the Dutch Poultry Expertise Centre (PEC) and the

Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO).

2

44

REFERENCES

Benard, M., & de Cock Buning, T. (2013). Exploring the Potential of Dutch Pig Farmers and Urban-Citizens to Learn Through Frame Reflection. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 26(5), 1015-1036. doi:10.1007/s10806-013-9438-y

Bergstra, T. J., Gremmen, B., & Stassen, E. N. (2015). Moral Values and Attitudes Toward Dutch Sow Husbandry. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 28(2), 375-401. doi:10.1007/s10806-015-9539-x

Bergstra, T. J., Hogeveen, H., & Stassen, E. N. (2017). Attitudes of different stakeholders toward pig husbandry: a study to determine conflicting and matching attitudes toward animals, humans and the environment. Agriculture and Human Values, 34(2), 393-405. doi:10.1007/s10460-016-9721-4

Boogaard, B. K., Oosting, S. J., & Bock, B. B. (2006). Elements of societal perception of farm animal welfare: A quantitative study in The Netherlands. Livestock Science, 104(1-2), 13-22. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2006.02.010


Botreau, R., Veissier, I., Butterworth, A., Bracke, M. B. M., & Keeling, L. J. (2007). Definition of criteria for overall assessment of animal welfare. Animal Welfare, 16(2), 225-228.

Brambell, R. (1965). Report of the technical committee to enquire into the welfare of animals kept under intensive livestock husbandry systems. Retrieved from London:

Carifio, J., & Perla, R. (2008). Resolving the 50-year debate around using and misusing Likert scales. Medical Education, 42(12), 1150-1152. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03172.x

Castellini, C., Boggia, A., Cortina, C., Dal Bosco, A., Paolotti, L., Novelli, E., & Mugnai, C. (2012). A multicriteria approach for measuring the sustainability of different poultry production systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 37, 192-201. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.006


De Boer, I. J. M., & Cornelissen, A. M. G. (2002). A method using sustainability indicators to compare conventional and animal-friendly egg production systems. Poultry Science, 81(2), 173-181.

De Vries, M., Kwakkel, R. P., & Kijlstra, A. (2006). Dioxins in organic eggs: A review. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 54(2), 207-221.

Dekker, S. E. M., de Boer, I. J. M., Vermeij, I., Aarnink, A. J. A., & Koerkamp, P. W. G. G. (2011). Ecological and economic evaluation of Dutch egg production systems. Livestock Science, 139(1-2), 109-121. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2011.03.011

Eurobarometer. (2005). Attitudes of consumers towards the welfare of farmed animals (229). Retrieved from Brussels, Belgium: http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/ebs/ebs_229_en.pdf

Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (M. Carmichael Ed. 4th ed.): SAGE.

Fraser, D. (1995). Science, Values and Animal Welfare: Exploring the 'Inextricable Connection'. Animal Welfare, 4(2), 103-117.



45

Frewer, L. J., Shepherd, R., & Sparks, P. (1994). Biotechnology and food production: knowledge and perceived risk. British Food Journal, 96(9), 26-32.

Gocsik, É., Van Der Lans, I. A., Oude Lansink, A. G. J. M., & Saatkamp, H. W. (2015). Willingness of Dutch broiler and pig farmers to convert to production systems with improved welfare. Animal Welfare, 24(2), 211-222. doi:10.7120/09627286.24.2.211



Groot Koerkamp, P. W. G., & Bos, A. P. (2008). Designing complex and sustainable agricultural production systems: an integrated and reflexive approach for the case of table egg production in the Netherlands. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 55(2), 113-138. doi:10.1016/S1573-5214(08)80032-2


Hansson, H., & Lagerkvist, C. J. (2014). Defining and measuring farmers' attitudes to farm animal welfare. Animal Welfare, 23(1), 47-56. doi:10.7120/09627286.23.1.047

Harper, G. C., & Henson, S. (2001). Consumer concerns about animal welfare and the impact on food choice (Final report). Retrieved from http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/animal/welfare/eu_fair_project_en.pdf

Harvey, D., & Hubbard, C. (2013). Reconsidering the political economy of farm animal welfare: An anatomy of market failure. Food Policy, 38(1), 105-114. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.11.006

Hegelund, L., Sørensen, J. T., & Hermansen, J. E. (2006). Welfare and productivity of laying hens in commercial organic egg production systems in Denmark. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 54(2), 147-155.

Heng, Y., Peterson, H. H., & Li, X. (2013). Consumer attitudes toward farm-animal welfare: The case of laying hens. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 38(3), 418-434.

Hovi, M., Sundrum, A., & Thamsborg, S. M. (2003). Animal health and welfare in organic livestock production in Europe: current state and future challenges. Livestock Production Science, 80(1-2), 41-53. doi:10.1016/s0301-6226(02)00320-2


Kanis, E., Groen, A. B. F., & De Greef, K. H. (2003). Societal concerns about pork and pork production and their relationships to the production system. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 16(2), 137-162. doi:10.1023/A:1022985913847

Kendall, H. A., Lobao, L. M., & Sharp, J. S. (2006). Public concern with animal well -being: Place, social structural location, and individual experience. Rural Sociology, 71(3), 399-428. doi:10.1526/003601106778070617

Kijlstra, A., & Eijck, I. A. J. M. (2006). Animal health in organic livestock production systems: a review. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 54(1), 77-94. doi:10.1016/s1573-5214(06)80005-9


Knierim, U. (2006). Animal welfare aspects of outdoor runs for laying hens: A review. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 54(2), 133-145.

2

46

Knight, S., Vrij, A., Cherryman, J., & Nunkoosing, K. (2004). Attitudes towards animal use and belief in animal mind. Anthrozoös, 17(1), 43-62.



Lebacq, T., Baret, P. V., & Stilmant, D. (2013). Sustainability indicators for livestock farming. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 33(2), 311-327. doi:10.1007/s13593-012-0121-x

Leinonen, I., Williams, A. G., & Kyriazakis, I. (2014). The effects of welfare-enhancing system changes on the environmental impacts of broiler and egg production. Poultry Science, 93(2), 256-266. doi:10.3382/ps.2013-03252

Liu, X., Vedlitz, A., & Shi, L. (2014). Examining the determinants of public environmental concern: Evidence from national public surveys. Environmental Science and Policy, 39, 77-94. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2014.02.006

McGlone, J. J. (2001). Farm animal welfare in the context of other society issues: Toward sustainable systems. Livestock Production Science, 72(1-2), 75-81. doi:10.1016/S0301-6226(01)00268-8

Meuwissen, M., & Van Der Lans, I. (2005). Trade-offs between consumer concerns: An application for pork supply chains. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section C - Economy, 2(1), 27-34. doi:10.1080/16507540510033442

Mollenhorst, H., Berentsen, P. B., & De Boer, I. J. (2006). On-farm quantification of sustainability indicators: an application to egg production systems. British Poultry Science, 47(4), 405-417. doi:10.1080/00071660600829282

Mollenhorst, H., & De Boer, I. J. M. (2004). Identifying sustainability issues using participatory SWOT analysis: A case study of egg production in the Netherlands. Outlook on Agriculture, 33(4), 267-276. doi:10.5367/0000000042664747

Rodenburg, T. B., Tuyttens, F. A. M., de Reu, K., Herman, L., Zoons, J., & Sonck, B. (2008). Welfare assessment of laying hens in furnished cages and non-cage systems: Assimilating expert opinion. Animal Welfare, 17(4), 355-361.

Rollin, B. E. (2004). Annual Meeting Keynote Address: Animal agriculture and emerging social ethics for animals. Journal of Animal Science, 82(3), 955-964.



Shimmura, T., Bracke, M. B. M., De Mol, R. M., Hirahara, S., Uetake, K., & Tanaka, T. (2011). Overall welfare assessment of laying hens: Comparing science-based, environment-based and animal-based assessments. Animal Science Journal, 82(1), 150-160. doi:10.1111/j.1740-0929.2010.00834.x


Slovic, P. (1999). Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Surveying the risk- assessment battlefield. Risk Analysis, 19(4), 689-701. doi:10.1023/A:1007041821623


Stadig, L. M., Ampe, B. A., Van Gansbeke, S., Van Den Bogaert, T., D'Haenens, E., Heerkens, J. L. T., & Tuyttens, F. A. M. (2016). Survey of egg farmers regarding the ban on

47

conventional cages in the EU and their opinion of alternative layer housing systems in Flanders, Belgium. Poultry Science, 95(3), 715-725. doi:10.3382/ps/pev334

Stadig, L. M., Ampe, B. A., Van Gansbeke, S., Van Den Bogaert, T., D’Haenens, E., Heerkens, J. L. T., & Tuyttens, F. A. M. (2015). Opinion of Belgian egg farmers on hen welfare and its relationship with housing type. Animals, 6(1), 1-11. doi:10.3390/ani6010001

Sturgis, P., Brunton-Smith, I., & Fife-Schaw, C. (2010). Public attitudes to genomic science: An experiment in information provision. Public Understanding of Science, 19(2), 166-180. doi:10.1177/0963662508093371


Thompson, P. B., Appleby, M., Busch, L., Kalof, L., Miele, M., Norwood, B. F., & Pajor, E. (2011). Values and public acceptability dimensions of sustainable egg production. Poultry Science, 90(9), 2097-2109. doi:10.3382/ps.2010-0138

Tuyttens, F. A. M., Vanhonacker, F., Van Poucke, E., & Verbeke, W. (2010). Quantitative verification of the correspondence between the Welfare Quality® operational definition of farm animal welfare and the opinion of Flemish farmers, citizens and vegetarians. Livestock Science, 131(1), 108-114. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2010.03.008

Vanhonacker, F., Van Poucke, E., Tuyttens, F. A. M., & Verbeke, W. (2010). Citizens’ Views on Farm Animal Welfare and Related Information Provision: Exploratory Insights from Flanders, Belgium. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 23(6), 551-569. doi:10.1007/s10806-010-9235-9

Vanhonacker, F., Verbeke, W., Van Poucke, E., Buijs, S., & Tuyttens, F. A. M. (2009). Societal concern related to stocking density, pen size and group size in farm animal production. Livestock Science, 123(1), 16-22. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2008.09.023

Vanhonacker, F., Verbeke, W., Van Poucke, E., Pieniak, Z., Nijs, G., & Tuyttens, F. A. M. (2012). The Concept of Farm Animal Welfare: Citizen Perceptions and Stakeholder Opinion in Flanders, Belgium. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 25(1), 79-101. doi:10.1007/s10806-010-9299-6

Vanhonacker, F., Verbeke, W., Van Poucke, E., & Tuyttens, F. A. M. (2007). Segmentation based on consumers’ perceived importance and attitude toward farm animal welfare. International Journal of Sociology of Food and Agriculture, 15(3), 91-107.


Verbeke, W. A. J., & Viaene, J. (2000). Ethical Challenges for Livestock Production: Meeting Consumer Concerns about Meat Safety and Animal Welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 12(2), 141-151. doi:10.1023/a:1009538613588


Xiao, C., & McCright, A. M. (2015). Gender Differences in Environmental Concern: Revisiting the Institutional Trust Hypothesis in the USA. Environment and Behavior, 47(1), 17-37. doi:10.1177/0013916513491571

Xin, H., Gates, R. S., Green, A. R., Mitloehner, F. M., Moore, P. A., & Wathes, C. M. (2011). Environmental impacts and sustainability of egg production systems. Poultry Science, 90(1), 263-277. doi:10.3382/ps.2010-00877

2

Mariska va

Perceptions of citizens, poultry farmers and

poultry veterinarians of laying hen welfare

3To be submitted

van Asselt



1 Department of Applied Research, Aeres

University of Applied Sciences Dronten,

De Drieslag 4, 8251 JZ Dronten, the

Netherlands; 2 Adaptation Physiology Group,


Wageningen University & Research, P.O.

Box 338, 6700 AH, Wageningen, the

Netherlands; 3 Department of Applied Research, Aeres

University of Applied Sciences Almere,

Stadhuisplein 40, 1315 XA Almere, the

Netherlands.

CHAPTER 3

50

ABSTRACT

In society, questions have been raised about laying hen welfare and about how hens

should be kept. Insight into perceptions of hen welfare from different stakeholder

groups could provide input on how to deal with the public concerns. Therefore, a

quantitative survey by means of an online questionnaire was done to study

perceptions of laying hen welfare from Dutch citizen, poultry farmers and poultry

veterinarians. Questions regarded the perceptions of the welfare of hens in four

different husbandry systems, the influence of various hen welfare aspects on the

welfare of hens, and knowledge regarding hen husbandry. Citizens perceived the

welfare of hens kept in an organic husbandry system as highest, while farmers and

veterinarians perceived the welfare of hens in an indoor non-cage system as highest.

These differences in welfare scores could be explained by different perceptions of

aspects of hen welfare and knowledge regarding hen behaviour. Socio-demographic

characteristics of the citizens were also of influence on the results. Compared to the

professionals, citizens perceived the influence of aspects related to natural behaviour

higher, and of the aspects pain, and anxiety or stress lower. This may explain the

higher welfare scores of citizens and the lower welfare scores of the professionals for

the outdoor systems. Several alternatives are suggested to deal with the different

perceptions of stakeholder groups in order improve societal support for hen

husbandry.

Key words: Animal welfare, husbandry systems, laying hens, perceptions,

stakeholders, survey

PERCEPTIONS OF HEN WELFARE

51

INTRODUCTION

Last decades, livestock husbandry in western countries has transformed into a sector

with predominately intensive husbandry systems, characterized by industrialized,

mostly indoor systems with focus on efficient production. Due to this intensification,

the number of animals per farm has increased and the number of people involved in

livestock production decreased (Golden et al., 2012; Spoelstra et al., 2013). Meanwhile,

other animal practices like keeping pets and livestock for hobby has become more

important. It has resulted in a broader variety of human-animal relations and thus

different views on animals and the way they should be treated (Cohen et al., 2010;

Rollin, 2007). The change in views on how to treat animals has given rise to increased

public concerns about animal welfare (McGlone, 2001; Rollin, 2007), especially about

intensive kept livestock such as laying hens (Eurobarometer, 2005).

Headed by NGO’s campaigns the general public asked for more welfare-friendly

husbandry systems which led to for instance a ban on the conventional battery cages

in the European Union since January 2012 (Council of the European Union, 1999). In

the Netherlands, nowadays most laying hens are kept indoors in colony cages or

indoor non-cage systems. A minor part of the Dutch hens is kept in free-range systems

with outdoor access or in organic systems with outdoor access. The number of hens

that has outdoor access is growing and represents about 20% of the total number of

layers in the Netherlands (PPE, 2012).

Keeping hens in outdoor systems has raised questions about public health and food

safety risks (Harper et al., 2001; Hovi et al., 2003; Verbeke et al., 2000). The use of

outdoor runs may result in an increased risk of transmission of pathogens, such as the

zoonotic pathogen Avian Influenza, from domestic or wild animals to laying hens

(Gonzales et al., 2012; Koch et al., 2006) or an uptake by hens of dioxin, causing

higher dioxin levels in outdoor produced eggs (Kijlstra et al., 2009; Schoeters et al.,

2006). Consequently, keeping hens in outdoor systems gives rise to a dilemma

between on the one hand a potential better animal welfare, and on the other hand

public health and food safety risks occurs. The question is to what extent aspects of

hen welfare, and especially outdoor access, are perceived as beneficial for hen welfare

by citizens and professionals working in poultry husbandry.

3

CHAPTER 3

52

To assess hen welfare in different hen husbandry systems several methods have been

developed by scientists. The results of these welfare assessments methods differ,

because different welfare parameters are taken into account (Mason et al., 1993;

Zaludik et al., 2007). The choice and interpretation of welfare parameters depend on

the perception of animal welfare, which is influenced by value-based views on what is

necessary for animals to have a good life (Fraser, 1995; Mason et al., 1993). One view

focuses on the biological functioning of the animal and welfare is measured by

parameters like growth or production rate, morbidity and mortality (Fraser, 2003). A

second view considers that a good animal life depends on the ‘affective states’ of

animals (Fraser, 2003). According to this view, animal welfare is measured by means

of animal-based parameters for aspects such as pain, anxiety or stress. Another view

of animal welfare is that animals should lead natural lives. Welfare is perceived in

terms of naturalness and animal welfare is assessed by measurement of environmental

based parameters for aspects such as space, outdoor access, and opportunities to

perform scratching and dust bathing behaviour (Fraser et al., 1997). These different

views on good animal welfare may result in different perceptions of hen welfare.

Furthermore, perceptions of animal welfare are influenced by interests, knowledge

and experiences with livestock (Te Velde et al., 2002; Vanhonacker et al., 2008).

Compared to 60 years ago, less people are involved in animal production and as a

consequence citizens became estranged from livestock production (Boogaard et al.,

2011). Consequently, citizens and professionals working in laying hen husbandry differ

in knowledge regarding for example, the productivity of hen or the behavioural needs

of laying hens. It is also likely that professionals are more positively biased towards

systems they gained experience in (Stadig et al., 2015), which is most often an indoor

husbandry system. Consequently, the perceptions of hen welfare may differ between

citizens and professionals, such as poultry farmers and poultry veterinarians. Also

among citizens the perceptions may differ, because citizens may have different value-

based views towards animals, as mentioned above (Cohen et al., 2012).

After the ban on the conventional battery cages and the introduction of alternative

husbandry systems, the discussion on how hens should be kept is ongoing. It is stated

that new systems, such as the furnished cage systems, which are developed to improve

hen welfare in cage systems, do not address adequately public concerns regarding hen

welfare (Weary et al., 2016). Insight into perceptions of citizens, poultry farmers and


53

poultry veterinarians regarding hen welfare would be valuable input for the

development of hen husbandry systems that are more supported by society.

Perceptions of farm animal welfare in general (e.g. Bracke et al., 2005; Te Velde et al.,

2002; Vanhonacker et al., 2008) or in a specific farm animal species, such as broilers

(Tuyttens et al., 2014; Vanhonacker et al., 2016), have been studied. However, to our

knowledge, no studies have been done on perceptions of hen welfare in citizens,

poultry farmers and veterinarians. Therefore, in this study perceptions of the welfare

of hens in different husbandry systems from citizens, poultry farmers and poultry

veterinarians are analysed. To this end, for the three stakeholder groups the influence

of various hen welfare aspects on the welfare of hens, and the influence of knowledge

regarding laying hen husbandry on the perceptions of hen welfare are studied. Lastly,

within the citizens’ group is explored whether different segments of citizens with

different perceptions of hen welfare can be identified.

METHODOLOGY

Survey

To collect data concerning perceptions on laying hen welfare from citizen, poultry

farmers and poultry veterinarians, a quantitative survey by means of an online

questionnaire was done. Respondents answered questions regarding the welfare of

laying hens, knowledge of hen husbandry and hen behaviour, and regarding socio-

demographic characteristics of the respondents. The questionnaire was developed

using literature review and input from a consulting group. The consulting group

consisted of experts on the field of hen health, hen welfare, public health, and

representatives from different stakeholder groups, e.g. citizens, poultry farmers and

poultry veterinarians. During the designing phase of the survey the consulting group

provided input on the questionnaire on several occasions. Before the survey was done,

the questionnaire was pilot tested for comprehensibility and clarity of the questions.

Based on these results the questionnaire was then further optimized and subsequently

executed.

Questionnaire To gain insight into views of laying hen welfare from the stakeholder groups, two

questions regarding laying hen welfare were asked. Firstly, the respondents were

3

CHAPTER 3

54

asked to rate the welfare of laying hens in four different laying husbandry systems on

a 5-point Likert scale ranging from poor to good. The question was: “What do you

think of the welfare of laying hens kept in following husbandry systems?”. The four

most applied systems in the Netherlands, colony cages, indoor non-cage, free-range

with outdoor access and organic, were included in this question. For each husbandry

system a short description, limited to the most important husbandry characteristics of

the system, was given (Table 3.1). This research studies the current perceptions of

people. Therefore, only limited information was provided, as new and detailed

information may influence the current perceptions of the respondents (Boogaard et al.,

2011; Te Velde et al., 2002; Ventura et al., 2016).

Table 3.1 Descriptions of laying hen husbandry systems Husbandry system Description Colony cages* cages for groups of 80 hens, littered area, nests, perches Indoor non-cage free-range on litter and/ or multi-tiered with nests, perches, a little more space Free-range outdoor free-range on litter and/ or multi-tiered with nests, perches, more space, outdoor

access Organic free-range on litter and/ or multi-tiered with nests, perches, more space, outdoor

access, beaks are not treated, organic feed. *In the Netherlands additional legislation for furnished cages exists and these cages are referred to as colony cages

Secondly, the respondents were asked to score to what extent aspects of hen welfare

influence hen welfare. The question was: “To what extent do you think the welfare of

laying hens is influenced by the following aspects?". Respondents could rate the

influence on welfare of each aspect on a five-point Likert scale ranging from

absolutely no influence on hen welfare to absolutely does influence hen welfare.

Aspects relevant for hen welfare, based on different views on animal welfare i.e.

biological functioning, affective states, and leading natural lives were selected: hens

lay many eggs and mortality; for affective states: pain, anxiety or stress, and injuries,

and for naturalness: space to move around freely, environment meets natural needs of

the chicken, outdoor access, ad lib. feed and water, scratching and dust bathing

opportunities, enrichment (straw, grain), a treated beak of the hens.

To assess the knowledge level regarding hen behaviour and production the

respondents were asked to indicate for three statements whether they were true or

false (Table 3.2). They could also choose for the option “I do not know”. The first

statement concerned the egg production rate per hen in order to get some insight into


55

whether or not people have an idea of the current production level of hens. The second

and the third statement concerned issues related to the behavioural needs of hens.

Table 3.2 Statements with correct answers Statement Correct answer

1. A laying hen kept for the production of eggs lays an egg every second day. False 2. A chicken, which never had the opportunity to perform dust bathing behaviour, has

no need for dust bathing. False

3. Scratching behaviour is a natural need for chickens. True

The last part of the questionnaire concerned questions regarding the socio-

demographic characteristics of the respondents. Socio-demographic variables that may

influence perceptions of animal welfare, were selected from literature: gender, age,

educational level, personal income, urbanisation level of current residence, childhood

residence, household with children (yes or no), pet ownership (yes or no), frequency

of meat consumption and whether they donate to a nature or animal welfare

organisation (Bergstra et al., 2017a; Boogaard et al., 2006; Cohen et al., 2012; Harper

et al., 2001; Kendall et al., 2006; Knight et al., 2004; Tuyttens et al., 2010;

Vanhonacker et al., 2010; Vanhonacker et al., 2009; Vanhonacker et al., 2007).

Respondents

The survey was carried out among Dutch citizens, poultry farmers and poultry

veterinarians through March and April 2014. Because citizens, without being

necessarily consumers, participate in the public debate about the laying hen husbandry

(Harvey et al., 2013), people were surveyed in their role of citizen. Citizens were

approached by CentERdata (www.centerdata.nl), a research institute specialized in

online surveys. This institute holds a panel of Dutch citizens, which is representative

for the Dutch population. CentERdata approached 3344 panel respondents of whom

2373 (71.0%) started to fill in the questionnaire and 2261 respondents (67.6%)

completed the questionnaire. Two respondents were left out the results, because they

reported not to have filled in the questionnaire seriously, leaving 2259 valid

questionnaires for analysis. Veterinarians registered with the Section Poultry Health

(VGP) of the Royal Veterinary Association of the Netherlands (n=144) were invited in

an e-mail to fill in the online questionnaire. Of this registered group 51 (35.4%)

completed the questionnaire. Of the 51 respondents 41 met our definition of poultry

veterinarian someone working more than 30% of their time as a veterinarian in the

3

CHAPTER 3

56

poultry sector and were included for analysis. We invited Dutch poultry farmers to

participate in the survey by a digital newsletter of the Dutch organisation of poultry

farmers (NOP), which was sent to approximately 3,000 people interested in poultry

husbandry. Also several articles were posted on websites dealing with poultry

production, such as the website of Dutch poultry magazine (Pluimveehouderij1), and

on a website regarding agriculture in general. The newsletter and websites were freely

available. One hundred poultry farmers, who kept poultry professionally completed

the questionnaire.

Statistical analyses

Data were analysed using SPSS 22.0. Analysis of variance was used to assess the effect

of the group on (1) the mean hen welfare scores for the four husbandry systems and

(2) the mean scores for the influence on hen welfare of 12 aspects. One-way analysis of

variance (ANOVA) was done if variances were homogeneous according Levene’s test.

Not homogeneous variances were analysed using the Welch test. If the effect of the

groups was significant, the post-hoc Games-Howell test for multiple comparisons was

done to analyse differences between the means of the individual groups.

In the citizens’ group, a cluster analysis was done to identify relatively homogeneous

segments of citizens regarding the perception of hen welfare aspects. A two-step

clustering procedure was performed. The first step was a hierarchical clustering

method, Ward’s method with Squared Euclidean distances, and aims to define the

number of clusters. The number of clusters was determined based on a jump in the

agglomeration coefficient. The second step, the K-means clustering, is a non-

hierarchical procedure, which further reduces the heterogeneity within the clusters in

order to get more accurate cluster memberships. Chi-square analysis was used to

analyse the association between firstly, cluster membership and socio-demographic

characteristics, and secondly between cluster membership and being farmer or

veterinarian and knowledge.



57

RESULTS

Respondents

The main socio-demographic features of the respondents are presented in Table 3.3.

Compared to the CBS data from the Netherlands the citizens’ sample was slightly

overrepresented with older people and higher educated people. Poultry farmers and

poultry veterinarians are predominantly male.

Table 3.3 Socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents

Citizens (n=2259)

Poultry farmers (n=100)

Poultry veterinarians (n=41) CBS1

Gender (%) Male 52.2 88.0 80.5 49.2

Female 47.8 12.0 19.5 50.8

Age (%) 15 - 34 years 16.6 11.0 12.2 29.3

35 - 54 years 36.8 73.0 51.2 34.2

> 55 years 46.6 16.0 36.6 36.5

Education (%) Low 26.7 28.0 0.0 30.9

Intermediate 29.3 43.0 0.0 41.0

High (BSc. /MSc.) 44.0 29.0 100.0 28.1 1 Data from CBS Statistics Netherlands dated 01-03-2014

Perceptions hen welfare in four systems

The mean welfare scores of laying hens in four different husbandry systems according

to the three stakeholder groups are presented in Table 3.4. Citizens scored the welfare

of the hens in the four husbandry systems differently from poultry farmers and

poultry veterinarians. Citizens perceived the welfare of hens kept in organic

husbandry systems as highest, while farmers and veterinarians perceived the welfare

of these hens as lowest. Farmers and veterinarians scored the welfare of laying hens in

indoor non-cage systems and in colony cages higher than citizens.

3

CHAPTER 3

58

Table 3.4 Mean welfare scores (± SE) for hens in four different husbandry systems according to citizens, poultry farmers and poultry veterinarians scored on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = ‘poor welfare’ to 5 = ‘good welfare’ Citizens

Poultry farmers

Poultry veterinarians

n = 2259 n = 100 n = 41 Test statistics p-value

Colony cages 2.09a ± 0.022 3.68b ± 0.129 3.71b ± 0.149 F2,79.50 = 127.17 < 0.001 Indoor non-cage 2.97a ± 0.020 4.23b ± 0.097 4.10b ± 0.109 F2,2397 = 110.50 < 0.001 Free-range outdoor 3.84a ± 0.018 3.00b ± 0.151 3.61a ± 0.178 F2,77.61 = 127.17 < 0.001 Organic 4.34a ± 0.018 2.83b ± 0.158 3.15b ± 0.199 F2,77.40 = 62.25 < 0.001 a,b Means within a row with different superscripts differ significantly at p <0.05 (Post-hoc Games Howell multiple comparisons test)

Aspects of hen welfare

To find out how the respondents perceive aspects of hen welfare, the three stakeholder

groups were asked to score the influence on hen welfare for 12 different aspects on a

five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = absolutely not influences welfare, to 5 =

absolutely influences welfare. For each stakeholder group mean scores for the welfare

aspects are presented in Figure 3.1. The range of the mean scores from poultry farmers

(2.40 - 4.31) and poultry veterinarians (2.27 – 4.51) was larger than the range of the

mean scores from citizens (3.42 - 4.32). The influence on laying hen welfare of the

aspects ‘injuries’ and ‘mortality’ were not scored differently (p > 0.05) by the three

stakeholder groups while the other aspects were scored differently among the groups

(p < 0.05).

Citizens gave the highest scores for the aspects related to naturalness: ‘space to move

around freely’, ‘environment meets natural needs’, ‘outdoor access’, ‘ad lib. feed and

water’, ‘scratching and dust bathing opportunities’ and ‘enrichment’. Farmers and

veterinarians scored the influence of the aspects ‘pain’, ‘anxiety or stress’, and

‘injuries’ as highest and scored the influence of ‘outdoor access’ as lowest.

Veterinarians scored the influence on hen welfare of ‘scratching and dust bathing

opportunities’ higher than farmers did and not differently from citizens. The biggest

difference in scores between citizens and the two professional groups regarded the

aspects ‘outdoor access’ and ‘hens lay many eggs’.


59

Figure 3.1 Mean scores (± SE) for 12 aspects of hen welfare for each stakeholder group scored on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = ‘absolutely no influence’ to 5 = ‘absolutely does influence welfare’

Citizens analysis

Clusters of citizens Results of the cluster analysis showed that, based on the scores respondents gave for

the welfare aspects, four clusters of citizens can be distinguished (Figure 3.2). The

first cluster consists of 18.1% of the citizens (n = 410). This cluster scored on average

the influence of the aspects on hen welfare lower than the other clusters and is

therefore called the Low cluster (LC). The second cluster is the largest cluster and

includes 42.8% of the citizens (n = 967). This cluster ascertains moderate influence on

all welfare aspects and will be referred to as the Moderate cluster (MC). The third

cluster consists of 28.7% of the citizens (n = 648), who scored on average the

influence of aspects on hen welfare higher than the other clusters and is therefore

called the High cluster (HC). The last cluster holds the lowest number of citizens

(n=234, 10.4%). This cluster of respondents scored the influence of the aspects ‘space

to move around freely’, ‘environment meets natural needs’, ‘outdoor access’, ‘ad lib.

feed and water’, ‘scratching and dust bathing opportunities’ and ‘enrichment’ high,

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Influ

ence

on

wel

fare


3

CHAPTER 3

60

while they scored the other aspects low. Therefore, this cluster is called the Diverse

cluster (DC). The mean scores for most aspects differed among the four clusters (p <

0.001). However, the scores of the Moderate and Diverse cluster for ‘space to move

around freely’ and ‘enrichment’, and the scores of the Low and Diverse cluster for

‘hens lay many eggs’ did not differ (p > 0.05).

Figure 3.2 Mean scores (± SE) for 12 aspects of hen welfare for each cluster of citizens, the Low cluster (n = 410), Moderate cluster (n = 967), High cluster (n = 648) and Diverse cluster (n = 234), on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = ‘absolutely no influence on hen welfare’ to 5 = ‘absolutely does influence hen welfare’

To analyse the clusters of citizens further, the mean welfare scores of hens in four

different husbandry systems are presented per cluster in Table 3.5. Overall all clusters

of citizens ranked the hen welfare in the different systems in the same order, with

colony cages as the lowest welfare and organic system as the highest welfare.

Compared to the Moderate and the Low cluster, the High cluster discriminated more in

welfare scores as shown by a large range in mean scores (1.63 to 4.65). The mean

welfare scores did not differ between the Diverse cluster and the Moderate cluster, but

the scores of the High and the Low cluster differed from the Diverse and the Low

cluster.

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Influ

ence

on

welfa

re

Low concern Medium concern High concern Diverse cluster


61

Table 3.5 Mean welfare scores (± SE) for hens in four different husbandry systems per cluster of citizens scored on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = ‘poor welfare’ to 5 = ‘good welfare’

LC MC HC DC Test statistics p-value Colony cages 2.83a ± 0.047 2.07b ± 0.031 1.63c ± 0.036 2.09b ± 0.072 F(3, 787.55) = 137.25 <0.001 Indoor non-cage 3.30a ± 0.040 3.03b ± 0.028 2.61c ± 0.039 3.09b ± 0.069 F(3, 790.61) = 52.93 <0.001 Free-range 3.60a ± 0.041 3.91bc ± 0.024 3.83c ± 0.036 4.04b ± 0.058 F(3, 778.37) = 18.52 <0.001 Organic 3.68a ± 0.046 4.43b ± 0.024 4.65c ± 0.026 4.33b ± 0.060 F(3, 765.68) = 113.29 <0.001 LC = Low cluster (n = 410), MC = Moderate cluster (n = 967), HC = High cluster (n = 648), DC = Diverse cluster (n = 234) a,b,c Means within a row with different superscripts differ significantly at p < 0.05 (Post-hoc Games Howell multiple comparisons test)

Socio-demographic characteristics The four clusters differed in socio-demographic characteristics (Table 3.6). Childhood

residence (p = 0.191) and income (p = 0.055) did not differ among the clusters and are

not presented in Table 3.6. All other socio-demographic characteristics differed

significantly between the four clusters (p < 0.05). Compared to the sample mean, the

citizens of the Low cluster are male more often, between 45 and 64 years of age, have

pets less often, consume meat more frequently and donate to an animal welfare or

nature organisation less often. The Moderate cluster seems most comparable with the

sample mean, but includes citizens who are more likely to be male with a higher level

of education and consume meat more often than the sample mean. The High cluster

consists of citizens who are compared to the sample mean, females more often and

between 25 and 44 years old, higher educated, have pets more often, consume meat

less frequent, and donate to an animal welfare or nature organisation more often.

Compared to the sample mean, the Diverse cluster consists of more citizens above 65

years, who are lower educated, have a household with children less often and consume

meat less frequently.

3

CHAPTER 3

62

Table 3.6 Socio-demographic representation per cluster of citizens and test statistics

TC LC MC HC DC Test statistics p-value Gender (%)

χ2(3) = 45.79 < 0.001

Male 52.2 61.0 55.5 41.7 52.6

Female 47.8 39.0 44.5 58.3 47.4

Age (%) χ2(15) = 129.99 < 0.001 15 - 24 years 2.7 4.4 2.7 1.7 2.1 25 - 34 years 13.9 15.6 14.2 16.2 3.4

35 - 44 years 23.4 21.5 23.8 27.2 14.5

45 - 54 years 13.5 16.6 14.5 12.5 6.4

55 - 64 years 19.3 21.2 19.5 18.1 18.8

>65 years 27.3 20.7 25.3 24.4 54.7

Education (%) χ2(15) = 80.26 < 0.001 Primary school 4.2 4.4 3.8 3.2 8.1

Lower secondary 22.5 29.0 19.5 18.2 35.0

Higher secondary 11.2 11.5 11.4 12.0 7.7

Vocational 18.1 19.5 16.3 19.1 20.1

Bachelor 28.8 24.6 30.8 30.7 22.6

Master 15.2 11.0 18.1 16.7 6.4

Urbanisation1 (%) χ2(12) = 24.39 0.018

Very high urbanisation 15.0 14.3 14.3 16.9 15.2

High urbanisation 25.7 24.7 25.1 29.1 23.4

Moderate urbanisation 19.8 18.0 19.3 21.1 23.8

Little urbanisation 20.8 24.9 23.7 15.6 18.6

No urbanisation 17.6 18.0 17.6 17.3 19.0

Household with children (%) χ2(3) = 23.48 < 0.001

Yes 37.8 38.9 38.9 37.8 24.4

No 62.2 61.1 61.1 62.2 75.6

Pet ownership (%)

χ2(3) = 31.83 < 0.001 Yes 47.0 39.3 45.1 55.7 44.0

No 53.0 60.7 54.9 44.3 56.0

Frequency of meat consumption (%) χ2(6) = 58.08 < 0.001

6-7 times a week 41.7 52.0 44.5 35.3 30.3 2-5 times a week 48.5 41.5 47.8 50.3 59.0

0-1 time a week 9.7 6.6 7.8 14.4 10.7

Donates to a nature or animal welfare organisation (%) χ2(3) = 66.83 < 0.001

Yes 37.8 21.0 39.8 45.4 38.5

No 62.2 79.0 60.2 54.6 61.5

CI = citizens (n = 2259), PF = poultry farmers (n=100) PV = poultry veterinarians (n = 41) TC = total citizens, LC = Low cluster (n = 410), MC = Moderate cluster (n = 967), HC = High cluster (n = 648), DC = Diverse cluster (n = 234) 1 Number of inhabitants per square kilometre (Very high urbanisation: > 2500, High urbanisation: 1500 – 2500, Moderate urbanisation: 1000 – 1500, Little urbanisation: 500 – 1000, No urbanisation: less than 500)


63

Knowledge of laying hen husbandry

Three statements regarding knowledge about the hen behaviour and production were

asked to study the effect of knowledge on the perceptions of hen welfare. The results

of the four clusters of citizens, poultry farmers and veterinarians are presented in

Table 3.7. Compared to poultry farmers and veterinarians, citizens answered the least

number of statements correctly. Of the citizens, 48.7% answered the statement

regarding egg production rate correctly, 17.5% answered the statement incorrectly,

and 33.8% indicated not to know the answer. The statement regarding dust bathing

behaviour is answered correctly by 44.0% of the citizens and incorrectly by 5.4% of

the citizens, while 50.6% of the citizens responded not know the answer. Of the three

statements, citizens answered the statement regarding scratching behaviour most

often correctly (87.5%), least often incorrectly (2.2%) and least often answered ‘I do

not know’ (10.4%). Poultry veterinarians scored all three statements correctly (81%)

more often than poultry farmers (65%) and citizens (27%). Citizens answered ‘I do

not know’ more often than the two professional groups did. For the statements

regarding hen behaviour, citizens chose the incorrect answer less often than farmers

did.

Table 3.7 Percentage of correct, incorrect and “I do not know” answers on questions regarding laying hen production and behaviour in four clusters of citizens, and poultry farmers and poultry veterinarians

CI PF PV LC MC HC DC

A laying hen kept for the production of eggs lays an egg every second day

Correct (%) 39.8 52.3 50.5 44.4 95.0 90.2 Incorrect (%) 15.1 17.4 14.5 30.8 5.0 9.8 I do not know (%) 45.1 30.3 35.0 24.8 0.0 0.0

A chicken which never had the opportunity to perform dust bathing behaviour, has no need for dust bathing


Scratching behaviour is a natural need for chickens


CI = citizens (n = 2259); PF = poultry farmers (n=100); PV = poultry veterinarians (n = 41). LC = Low cluster (n = 410); MC = Moderate cluster (n = 967); HC = High cluster (n = 648); DC = Diverse cluster (n = 234).

3

CHAPTER 3

64

Cluster membership, being poultry farmer or poultry veterinarian were significant

associated with knowledge regarding egg production rate (χ2(10) = 175.96; p < 0.001),

dust bathing behaviour (χ2(10) = 159.71; p < 0.001), and scratching behaviour (χ2(10)

= 218.56; p < 0.001). Of the four clusters of citizens, the High cluster scored in total

the most statements correctly. The Low cluster scored the least statements correctly

and scored the highest percentage ‘I do not know’. The Moderate cluster scored

statement regarding the production of laying hens more often correctly than the

others, but scored the statements regarding hen behaviour less often correctly than

the High and Diverse cluster.

Knowledge in relation to welfare aspects For the citizens’ group, it was tested whether the knowledge level regarding hen

production and hen behaviour was associated with the welfare scores for the systems

or was associated with the scores for the 12 welfare aspects (Table 3.8). Regardless of

the answers for the three knowledge questions, the mean hen welfare in the colony

cages was scored as lowest and in the organic systems as highest. However, the range

in welfare scores for the two statements regarding behaviour is larger in the group

that answered a statement correctly than the group that answered incorrectly or

indicated not to know the answer. Citizens who answered the statement regarding

scratching behaviour and dust bathing behaviour correctly scored all aspects, except

for ‘hens lay many eggs’, higher than citizens who answered these statements

incorrectly (p < 0.05).


65

3

CHAPTER 3

66

DISCUSSION

Despite several adaptations in laying hen husbandry to improve laying hen welfare,

such as the ban on conventional cages, society still expresses concerns about laying

hen welfare. Due to the intensification of livestock production, less citizens are

involved in hen husbandry. However, their views on animal husbandry became more

important, because their influence on decision making concerning animal husbandry,

especially through NGO’s, has enhanced (Boogaard et al., 2011). Insight into current

perceptions and the knowledge of citizens, poultry farmers and poultry veterinarians

regarding hen welfare may provide input how to deal with these developments.

Therefore, by means of an online questionnaire, the perceptions of citizens, poultry

farmers and poultry veterinarians regarding laying hen welfare were studied.

Perceptions of hen welfare

The majority of the Dutch citizens perceived a husbandry system with outdoor access

as the best system for laying hen husbandry, while the majority of poultry farmers and

poultry veterinarians perceived an indoor system as the best system (Chapter 2). This

study shows that the perceptions of the welfare of hens in four different husbandry

systems also differ between citizens and the two professional groups. Farmers and

veterinarians scored the welfare of hens in the indoor non-cage system as highest,

while citizens scored the welfare of hens in the organic system as highest. On the

contrary, hen welfare in organic system was scored as lowest by farmers and

veterinarians. Certifications programs, such as the Better Life hallmark of the Dutch

Society for the Protection of Animals, claim that systems with outdoor access provide

higher levels of hen welfare (Van Wijk-Jansen et al., 2009). Dutch citizens evaluate

hen welfare in the systems in accordance with such certifications programs, while

farmers and veterinarians do not evaluate hen welfare in accordance with these

certifications programs. Most of the poultry farmers in our sample scored hen welfare

highest in the system they practice themselves, which confirms that experience with a

system may result in higher welfare scores for that system (Stadig et al., 2015).

Aspects of hen welfare

The differences in welfare judgments between stakeholder groups may be explained by

how they perceive different aspects of hen welfare. Poultry farmers and poultry


67

veterinarians scored hen welfare aspects related to natural behaviour, like ‘space to

move around freely’, ‘environment meets natural needs’, ‘outdoor access’, ‘scratching

and dust bathing opportunities’, and ‘enrichment’, lower than citizens did. These

results match with earlier studies regarding perceptions of general farm animal

welfare (Te Velde et al., 2002; Tuyttens et al., 2010; Vanhonacker et al., 2008).

Notable is that farmers and veterinarians scored the aspects ‘environment meets

natural needs’ and especially ‘outdoor access’ considerably lower than citizens did.

Most studies on scientific welfare assessment of hens kept in various systems show

that indoor systems perform better on freedom from pain, injuries and diseases than

outdoor systems (Lay Jr et al., 2011; Shimmura et al., 2011; Shimmura et al., 2010).

Farmers and veterinarians perceived the influence on hen welfare of the aspects ‘pain’,

‘injuries’, and ‘anxiety or stress’ higher than influence of the natural behaviour

aspects, which may explain their high welfare scores for the indoor systems. In

contrast citizens scored the influence on hen welfare of the aspects ‘space to move

around freely’, ‘environment meets natural needs’, ‘outdoor access’, ‘ad lib. feed and

water’, ‘scratching and dust bathing opportunities’, and ‘enrichment’ higher than

‘pain’, ‘injuries’, and ‘anxiety or stress’. Outdoor systems score better on opportunities

to perform natural behaviour than indoor systems (Freire et al., 2013; Lay Jr et al.,

2011; Shimmura et al., 2010). This may clarify citizens’ higher welfare scores for

outdoor systems than for indoor systems.

The specific perceptions of hen welfare in the different stakeholder groups may be

explained by several factors. First, the high scores for the aspects ‘pain’, ‘injuries’, and

‘anxiety or stress’ from farmers and veterinarians are compatible with a

Rational/Industrial world-view, which focusses on productivity and progress. People

with this world-view perceive a good animal life as a healthy life and consequently

they focus on disease prevention and prefer animals in confinement (Fraser, 2008).

Animal welfare is for professionals a way to achieve economic results (Hubbard et al.,

2011; Kendall et al., 2006) and thus they focus predominantly on health and

productivity of the hens. Second, most farmers and veterinarians are predominantly

male. It has been shown that males are less concerned about animal welfare and

attribute to animals less mental capacities, such as feelings and emotions, than do

females (Kendall et al., 2006; Knight et al., 2004). Moreover, changing to a system

that offers more opportunities to perform natural behaviour involves high investments

and may not be economically profitable (Te Velde et al., 2002). Citizens scored the

3

CHAPTER 3

68

animal health aspects lower than the natural behaviour aspects, which is in line with

other studies on perceptions of animal welfare that report that citizens perceive

animal welfare in terms of freedom to express natural behaviour and leading natural

lives (Bracke et al., 2005; Fraser, 2003; Fraser et al., 1997; Te Velde et al., 2002;

Vanhonacker et al., 2008). This perception of hen welfare, which focusses on leading

natural lives, is in accordance with a Romantic/Agrarian world-view, which perceives

good animal life as a natural life. People with this view emphasise on the importance

of emotions of animals and the freedom to perform natural behaviour. People with the

Romantic/Agrarian world-view therefore prefer free-range systems with outdoor

access (Fraser, 2008).

Citizens perceived the influence on welfare of ‘a treated beak’ and ‘hens lay many

eggs’ higher than farmers and veterinarians. However, respondents may have

interpreted these aspects in two ways. Especially citizens might have perceived ‘a

treated beak’ as a surgical intervention and a ‘high production rate’ as an indicator of

the intensity or industrialisation of hen husbandry. Therefore, citizens may have

perceived these two aspects negatively for hen welfare. On the contrary, farmers

might have thought that trimming of the beaks will affect hen welfare positively,

because it reduces feather pecking and cannibalism in the flock (Jendral et al., 2004).

Farmers and veterinarians view biological functioning as an important aspect of hen

welfare (Fraser et al., 1997; Te Velde et al., 2002) and may therefore view ‘hens lay

many eggs’ as an indicator for good welfare.

Clusters of citizens

Cluster analysis of citizens revealed that within the Dutch citizens four groups of

citizens can be recognised based on how they scored aspects of hen welfare. None of

these clusters scored the welfare aspects in accordance with the professionals. The

Low, Moderate and High cluster show a similar pattern in scores, but the average

scores are respectively low, moderate and high. The Diverse cluster however, shows a

different pattern in their evaluation of hen welfare aspects. The Diverse cluster scored

the aspects ‘pain’, ‘anxiety or stress’ and ‘injuries’ to have little influence on hen

welfare. It may be that this cluster interpreted the question differently and scored

these aspects to have a negative influence on hen welfare. Furthermore, the clusters

do not differ in the ranking of hen welfare scores for the four husbandry systems. All

four clusters scored the hen welfare in the colony cages as lowest and the welfare in


69

the organic systems as highest. The range in scores for the husbandry systems

however, differs among the clusters, with the High cluster scoring the largest range

and the Low cluster the smallest range of the four clusters.


The High cluster, representing 29% of the citizens, is compared to the other clusters

composed of more females, younger, higher educated citizens, who are pet owner

more often, consume less meat and donate to an animal welfare or nature organisation

more often. According to literature, females, vegetarians, higher educated people and

pet owners are more concerned about animal welfare in general (Cohen et al., 2012;

Kendall et al., 2006; Knight et al., 2004; Paul et al., 1993; Vanhonacker et al., 2007).

Compared to the other clusters, the low cluster scored all aspects of hen welfare lower

and they discriminated less in welfare scores for the four husbandry systems.

Compared to the other clusters, the Low cluster, representing 18% of the respondents,

consists of more males, lower educated citizens, who have less often pets, consume

more often meat and donate less often to an animal welfare or nature organisation.

Therefore, it may be concluded that citizens from the Low cluster perceive hen welfare

as a less important issue, whereas the citizens from the high cluster perceive hen

welfare as an important issue. Cluster analysis was not performed on farmers and

veterinarians because there were not enough respondents in these groups. Studies

regarding pig farmers have shown that within pig farmers the perception regarding

animal welfare can differ (Bergstra et al., 2017b; Hubbard et al., 2011). Therefore, also

within poultry farmers and poultry veterinarians, different clusters may consist based

on how they view hen welfare.

Knowledge

The information about the four husbandry systems provided to the respondents in the

questionnaire was limited to the most important husbandry characteristics of the

systems. The objective was to get insight into current perceptions of participants and

therefore neither technical nor performance parameters were provided. Consequently,

respondents may have judged hen welfare while having limited knowledge about the

systems and their performance on hen welfare. Assessment of knowledge regarding

laying hen behaviour and egg production by three questions confirmed that farmers

and veterinarians were more knowledge about laying hen behaviour than citizens.

3

CHAPTER 3

70

Veterinarians and farmers differed in knowledge about hen behaviour. It has been

shown that farmers do not seek for information on animal welfare (Te Velde et al.,

2002), which might explain the difference in knowledge between farmers and

veterinarians.


This study shows that perceptions of hen welfare in four systems differed among

clusters of citizens and between citizens and poultry farmers and poultry

veterinarians. The differences could be explained by different perceptions of aspects of

hen welfare and underlying world-views, socio-demographic characteristics and

knowledge. To deal with these different perceptions in order to improve societal

support for laying hen husbandry, different options have been suggested. The sector

believes that providing information to citizens will change citizens’ perceptions of

livestock husbandry in perception that are more in line with the perception of the

sector (Benard et al., 2013). However, the ‘knowledge deficit’ model as an explanation

for differences between citizens and professionals, which presumes that concerns can

be repaired through education, has been questioned (Hansen et al., 2003; Ventura et

al., 2016). Also, our results do not support the knowledge deficit model, because the

citizens with more knowledge about hen behaviour value hen welfare more differently

from farmers and veterinarians than citizens with less knowledge.

Citizens and professionals differ in knowledge and they differ in moral values

regarding animals (Cohen et al., 2012; Fraser, 2008). Moral values are deeply rooted

and consequently perceptions will not easily change by one-way education. Another

option would be to adapt current systems more in line with the citizens’ perceptions.

The perceptions of animal welfare from citizens suggest that systems should offer to

the hens more opportunities to express natural behaviour and should offer outdoor

access. However, farmers and veterinarians perceive indoor systems, which may

perform better than outdoor systems on both animal health and public health, as the

best systems. Although the current research shows that citizens, poultry farmers and

poultry farmers perceive hen welfare differently, they all perceive animal health

related aspects to have a high influence on hen welfare. Moreover, it has been shown

that citizens and farmers share a number of values, such as animals have value, duty

to care and protect animals (Cohen, 2010), and love for animals (Benard et al., 2013).

These shared moral values could be a starting point for reaching consensus about how


71

systems could benefit hen welfare. Interactive multi-stakeholder design methods, such

as used to develop Roundel, an innovative system that to allow hens to perform their

natural behaviour and brought the outdoor access indoors, show that such design

method can be successful (Groot Koerkamp et al., 2008; Spoelstra et al., 2013). Our

study shows a wide variation of perceptions of hen welfare within and between

stakeholder groups. Consequently, it may be interesting to focus on specific groups of

citizens and professionals instead of considering them as one uniform group. In that

way, husbandry systems might be adapted or developed that are beneficial for hen

welfare and may count on support of multiple stakeholder groups

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank the Dutch Poultry Expertise Centre (PEC) and the Netherlands

Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) for financial support.

3

CHAPTER 3

72

REFERENCES


Bergstra, T. J., Hogeveen, H., Erno Kuiper, W., Oude Lansink, A. G. J. M., & Stassen, E. N. (2017a). Attitudes of Dutch Citizens toward Sow Husbandry with Regard to Animals, Humans, and the Environment. Anthrozoös, 30(2), 195-211. doi:10.1080/08927936.2017.1310985

Bergstra, T. J., Hogeveen, H., & Stassen, E. N. (2017b). Attitudes of different stakeholders toward pig husbandry: a study to determine conflicting and matching attitudes toward animals, humans and the environment. Agriculture and Human Values, 34(2), 393-405. doi:10.1007/s10460-016-9721-4




Cohen, N. E. (2010). General discussion Thesis: Considering animals. Moral convictions concerning animals and judgement on the culling of healthy animals in animal disease epidemics. Wageningen, the Netherlands: Wageningen University.

Cohen, N. E., Brom, F., & Stassen, E. (2010). Keeping backyard animals in the Netherlands. A study into to the nature of the practice, its specific human-animal bond and views on the culling of healthy animals during an animal disease epidemic. In: Considering animals. Moral convictions concerning animals and judgement on the culling of healthy animals in animal disease epidemics (PhD thesis, pp. 35-51). Wageningen, the Netherlands: Wageningen University.


Council of the European Union (1999). Council Directive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 203, 53–57.



Fraser, D. (2003). Assessing animal welfare at the farm and group level: the interplay of science and values. Animal Welfare, 12(4), 433-443.

Fraser, D. (2008). Understanding animal welfare. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica, 50(Suppl 1):S1. doi:10.1186/1751-0147-50-s1-s1





73

Gonzales, J. L., Elbers, A. R. W., Bouma, A., Koch, G., de Wit, J. J., & Stegeman, J. A. (2012). Transmission characteristics of low pathogenic avian influenza virus of H7N7 and H5N7 subtypes in layer chickens. Veterinary Microbiology, 155(2-4), 207-213. doi:10.1016/j.vetmic.2011.09.016


Hansen, J. W., Holm, L., Frewer, L., Robinson, P., & Sandøe, P. (2003). Beyond the knowledge deficit: recent research into lay and expert attitudes to food risks . Appetite, 41(2), 111-121. doi:10.1016/S0195-6663(03)00079-5



Hovi, M., Sundrum, A., & Thamsborg, S. M. (2003). Animal health and welfare in organic livestock production in Europe: current state and future challenges. Livestock Production Science, 80(1-2), 41-53. doi:10.1016/s0301-6226(02)00320-2

Hubbard, C., & Scott, K. (2011). Do farmers and scientists differ in their understanding and assessment of farm animal welfare? Animal Welfare, 20(1), 79-87.

Jendral, M. J., & Robinson, F. E. (2004). Beak trimming in chickens: historical, economical, physiological and welfare implications, and alternatives for preventing feather pecking and cannibalistic activity. Avian and Poultry Biology Reviews, 15(1), 9-23. doi:10.3184/147020604783637444

Kendall, H. A., Lobao, L. M., & Sharp, J. S. (2006). Public concern with animal well -being: Place, social structural location, and individual experience. Rural Sociology, 71(3), 399-428. doi:10.1526/003601106778070617





Mason, G., & Mendl, M. (1993). Why is there no simple way of Measuring Animal Welfare? Animal Welfare, 2(4), 301-319.


Paul, E. S., & Serpell, J. A. (1993). Childhood Pet keeping and Humane Attitudes in Young Adulthood. Animal Welfare, 2(4), 321-337.

PPE. (2012). Voorlopige jaarcijfers 2011 pluimveesector. Retrieved from http://www.pve.nl/pve?waxtrapp=rduHsHsuOnbPTEcBPR&context=nfMsHsuOnbPTEC


3

CHAPTER 3

74







Tuyttens, F., Vanhonacker, F., & Verbeke, W. (2014). Broiler production in Flanders, Belgium: Current situation and producers' opinions about animal welfare. World's Poultry Science Journal, 70(2), 343-354.


Van Wijk-Jansen, E. E. C., Hoogendam, K., & Bakker, T. (2009). The Beter Leven mark: the perception of organic consumers. Retrieved from Wageningen:

Vanhonacker, F., Tuyttens, F. A. M., & Verbeke, W. (2016). Belgian citizens' and broiler producers' perceptions of broiler chicken welfare in Belgium versus Brazil. Poultry Science, 95(7), 1555-1563. doi:10.3382/ps/pew059

Vanhonacker, F., Van Poucke, E., Tuyttens, F. A. M., & Verbeke, W. (2010). Citizens’ Views on Farm Animal Welfare and Related Information Provision: Exploratory Insights from Flanders, Belgium. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 23(6), 551-569. doi:10.1007/s10806-010-9235-9




Ventura, B. A., von Keyserlingk, M. A. G., Wittman, H., & Weary, D. M. (2016). What Difference Does a Visit Make? Changes in Animal Welfare Perceptions after Interested Citizens Tour a Dairy Farm. PLoS ONE, 11(5), e0154733. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0154733




75

Zaludik, K., Lugmair, A., Baumung, R., Troxler, J., & Niebuhr, K. (2007). Results of the Animal Needs Index (ANI-35L) compared to animal-based parameters in free-range and organic laying hen flocks in Austria. Animal Welfare, 16(2), 217-219.

3

Mariska va

Risk perceptions of public health and food safety hazards in poultry husbandry by citizens, poultry

farmers, and poultry veterinarians

4Poultry Science 2018 97(2):607–619

van Asselt

M. van Asselt1,2, P. M. Poortvliet3,

E.D. Ekkel4, B. Kemp2 and E.N.

Stassen2

1 Department of Applied Research,

Aeres University of Applied Sciences

Dronten, De Drieslag 4, 8251 JZ

Dronten, the Netherlands; 2 Adaptation Physiology Group,


Wageningen University & Research,

P.O. Box 338, 6700 AH, Wageningen,

the Netherlands; 3 Strategic Communication group, Sub

department Communication,

Philosophy, and Technology: Centre for

Integrative Development, Wageningen

University & Research, P.O. Box 8130,

6700 EW Wageningen, the Netherlands 4 Department of Applied Research,


Almere, Stadhuisplein 40, 1315 XA

Almere, the Netherlands

CHAPTER 4

78

ABSTRACT

Differences in risk perceptions of public health and food safety hazards in various

poultry husbandry systems by various stakeholder groups, may affect the acceptability

of those husbandry systems. Therefore, the objective was to gain insight into risk

perceptions of citizens, poultry farmers, and poultry veterinarians of food safety and

public health hazards in poultry husbandry systems, and into factors explaining these

risk perceptions. We surveyed risk perceptions of Campylobacter contamination of

broiler meat, avian influenza introduction in laying hens, and altered dioxin levels in

eggs for the most commonly used broiler and laying hen husbandry systems in Dutch

citizens (n = 2,259), poultry farmers (n = 100), and poultry veterinarians (n = 41).

Citizens perceived the risks of the three hazards in the indoor systems higher and in

the outdoor systems lower than did the professionals. Citizens reported higher

concerns regarding aspects reflecting underlying psychological factors of risk

perception compared to professionals. Professionals indicated a relatively high level of

personal control, which might imply risk denial. Of the socio-demographic

characteristics, gender and childhood residence were associated with risk perceptions.

The influence of other factors of risks perception are discussed. It is suggested that

risk perceptions of all stakeholder groups are influenced by affect, stigma and

underlying values. To adapt current or new husbandry systems that can count on

societal support, views of key stakeholders and multiple aspects such as animal

welfare, public health, food safety, and underlying values should be considered

integrally. When trade-offs, such as between animal welfare and public health have to

be made, insight into underlying values might help to find consensus among

stakeholders.

Key words: poultry husbandry, risk perception, stakeholder perception, public health,

food safety

RISK PERCEPTIONS

79

INTRODUCTION

In the Netherlands poultry husbandry is characterized by intensive husbandry systems

with high numbers of animals kept at high stocking densities, mostly without access to

an outdoor run. From 2000 to 2015, the total number of chickens increased from 104

million to 107 million, while the number of farms that keep chickens – laying hens or

broilers – decreased from 3,860 to 2,049 (CBS StatLine, 2016). Over the last decade,

the media has covered multiple crises related to poultry husbandry, such as

compromised welfare of fast growing broilers and laying hens in cage systems, disease

outbreaks such as avian influenza (bird flu), and food safety scandals, such as the

dioxin affair. Also, non-governmental organisation (NGOs) and citizens have expressed

their concerns about how animals are kept, about the public health risks of livestock

production and about the safety of food (Bergstra et al., 2017; Hansen et al., 2003).

As a result, new legislation has come into force in the European Union, such as a ban

on the conventional battery cages for laying hens since January 2012 (Council of the

European Union, 1999). Today, the most applied husbandry systems are indoor colony

cages or indoor non-cage systems (for laying hens), and conventional indoor systems

(for broilers). Only a minor part of the husbandry systems offers outdoor access to

poultry, but the number of outdoor systems and the consumption of outdoor eggs and

meat is growing (Bejaei et al., 2011). Which husbandry system people prefer depends

on how they perceive variegated issues such as animal welfare, price of eggs or meat,

or public health and food safety risks, and which issues they weigh in most heavily.

For example, professionals, such as farmers and veterinarians perceive good care to

animals and an economically viable system important (Bergstra et al., 2017;

Vanhonacker et al., 2008), and they prefer indoor systems (Gocsik et al., 2016; Van

Asselt et al., 2015; Chapter 2). Quite in contrast, citizens perceive naturalness, outdoor

access, public health and food safety important (Bergstra et al., 2017; Vanhonacker et

al., 2008), and they prefer free-range systems that provide to chickens outdoor access

(Van Asselt et al., 2015; Chapter 2).

Existing literature on public health hazards in poultry husbandry indicated that,

compared to chickens in indoor systems, keeping chickens in free-range systems with

outdoor access is associated with higher public health and food safety risks for certain

hazards, such as Campylobacter contamination, avian influenza and dioxin (Kijlstra et

4

CHAPTER 4

80

al., 2009). Although sample methods and results differ, meat from broilers kept in

outdoor systems, such as free-range and organic systems, is more likely to be

contaminated with Campylobacter than meat from indoor kept broilers (Heuer et al.,

2001; Rosenquist et al., 2013; van der Zee et al., 2005). In a study of Rosenquist et al.

(2013) meat from organic broilers was about two times more likely to be contaminated

than meat from conventional kept broilers (54% vs 20%). With regard to laying hens,

two hazards are associated with keeping hens in outdoor systems: elevated dioxin

levels in eggs and avian influenza. Studies indicated that dioxin levels are higher in

eggs from hens that have outdoor access, and in particular in eggs from organic hens

from private owners, than in eggs from hens that are kept indoors (EFSA, 2012;

Kijlstra et al., 2007; Pussemier et al., 2004; Schoeters et al., 2006; Van Overmeire et

al., 2006; Van Overmeire et al., 2009a; Van Overmeire et al., 2009b). Outdoor access

to laying hens was a risk factor for avian influenza (Gonzales et al., 2013; Koch et al.,

2006). A Dutch study reported that the introduction rate of the low pathogen avian

influenza virus on farms that offer outdoor access to hens, was 11 times higher

compared to farms that do not offer outdoor access (Gonzales et al., 2013).

Considering these studies, one may argue that from a public health point of view

indoor husbandry systems are preferable above outdoor systems.

The general public seems not aware that these risks may be higher when chickens are

kept in systems with outdoor access than when chickens are kept in indoor systems.

NGO’s such as the Dutch Society for the Protection of Animals (Dierenbescherming)

and the Alert Animal Foundation (Wakker dier), who both favour organic production,

do not communicate about these risks (Kijlstra et al., 2009). Professionals involved in

poultry husbandry, such as farmers and veterinarians, may be more knowledgeable

and experienced regarding public health and food safety hazards related to poultry

husbandry than are citizens. Literature on risk perceptions indicate that in case people

lack knowledge or when the risk assessment is complex, they will make a more

intuitive risk assessment, in which other aspects, such as feelings and trust levels may

play a role (Finucane et al., 2000a; Slovic et al., 2007). Consequently, the general

public may view food safety and public health hazards in various poultry husbandry

systems differently from professionals such as poultry farmers and poultry

veterinarians. Studies on risk perceptions of the general public compared to experts in

the context of, for example, new technologies and food production, have shown that

knowledge and experience, psychological factors and socio-demographic

RISK PERCEPTIONS

81

characteristics, could explain differences between risks perceptions of lay people and

experts (Fife-Schaw et al., 1996; Fischhoff, 1978; Hansen et al., 2003; Sjöberg, 2000;

Slovic, 1987).

Differences in risk perceptions among the general public and professionals, such as

farmers and veterinarians of public health and food safety hazards may have

consequences for the acceptability of poultry husbandry systems and especially for the

acceptability of outdoor systems. To co-design socially acceptable husbandry systems,

the perceptions of different stakeholders should be understood and considered (Groot

Koerkamp et al., 2008; Spoelstra et al., 2013). A better understanding of risks

perceptions of food safety and public health hazards by stakeholder groups, may

contribute to the co-design of poultry husbandry systems that address societal

concerns.

The objective of this study is twofold: 1) to gain insight into risk perceptions of food

safety and public health hazards in different poultry husbandry systems from the

general public as compared to professionals involved in poultry husbandry, and 2)

exploring the reasons why these risk perceptions differ. This study will survey the

perceptions of three potential public health hazards that may appear more often in

outdoor poultry husbandry systems than in indoor husbandry systems: Campylobacter

contamination of broiler meat (Heuer et al., 2001; Rosenquist et al., 2013; Van

Overbeke et al., 2006), avian influenza introduction in laying hens (Gonzales et al.,

2013; Koch et al., 2006) and increased dioxin levels in eggs (EFSA, 2012; Schoeters et

al., 2006; Van Overmeire et al., 2006). The risks perceptions of these three hazards

will be surveyed for the most common used broiler husbandry systems – conventional,

conventional plus, free-range, and organic – and in laying husbandry systems – colony

cages, indoor non-cage, free-range, and organic. We will now give a concise overview

of relevant risk perception research that will guide the analysis of the current study.

4

CHAPTER 4

82

Theoretical background

Risk perceptions Risk perceptions are complex and are affected by several factors. First of all, the “real”

or “objectified” risk, a result of technical estimate of risks, influences the perception of

risk (Sjöberg, 2000). In some contexts, when people have experience with and hazard-

related knowledge – such as experts on the field of topic – the perceived risk may

converge more or less with objective risk estimates (Sjöberg, 2000). In most contexts,

however, as is in the context of poultry husbandry, risk perceptions of people who are

non-experts is open to the influence of other subjective factors (Slovic et al., 2007).

Instead of an objective risks assessment of the hazards related to poultry husbandry,

people assess the risks more intuitively, whereby risks and benefits are not perceived

independently from each other (Finucane et al., 2000a; Ueland et al., 2012). A variety

of theories have identified factors that explain risk perceptions, such as knowledge

and experience, underlying psychological factors, and self-protection (for example see

Fife-Schaw et al., 1996; Fischhoff, 1978; Hansen et al., 2003; Krewski et al., 2012;

Sjöberg, 2000; Slovic, 1987).

Knowledge and experience In order to accurately assess the riskiness of public health hazards in poultry

husbandry some knowledge of the probability and consequences of the hazards, and

also about poultry husbandry in general, is necessary. Experts tend to assess risks

more in accordance with objectified standards than lay people (Slovic, 1987).

Therefore, differences in risk perception between experts and the general public were

attributed to the knowledge deficit of lay people (Hansen et al., 2003). Regarding

public health hazards related to poultry husbandry, most citizens are lay people, while

professionals - such as poultry veterinarians - have received extensive training and

experience, are thus more knowledgeable on these hazards and can be considered as

experts. However, it has been questioned whether experts are “right” and lay people

“wrong” and it has been strongly argued that risk perception is affected by other

factors rather than just knowledge (Hansen et al., 2003; Rowe et al., 2001).

RISK PERCEPTIONS

83

Underlying psychological factors In many studies devoted to risk perceptions in general or regarding food hazards more

specifically, the psychometric approach is used to explain differences in risk

perceptions (Fife-Schaw et al., 1996; Slovic, 1987; Sparks et al., 1994). Psychometric

studies demonstrated that risk perceptions are influenced by specific perceptual

factors, such as perceptions with respect to the degree of control, severity of the

consequences, fatality of consequences, voluntariness, trust in experts and

unknownness by the people exposed (Fife-Schaw et al., 1996; Fischhoff, 1978; Slovic,

1987, 1993; Sparks et al., 1994). Later studies suggested additional factors that should

be included in the psychometric model. For example, the naturalness of hazards

influences risk perceptions (Fife-Schaw et al., 1996; Siegrist et al., 2006) and chemical

hazards are perceived as more risky than are microbial hazards (Kher et al., 2013;

Siegrist et al., 2006). Therefore, the type of hazard should be considered as well.

Furthermore, it was shown that the degree of perceived personal control over the

hazard is an important factor of risk perception. Risks that are perceived to be under

control, are judged less severe than when they are not (Hansen et al., 2003; Leikas et

al., 2009; Sjöberg, 2000; Sparks et al., 1994; Weinstein, 1982).

Self-protection To explain fear appeals and to change self-protective behaviour in risk contexts, the

Protection Motivation Theory is used (Maddux et al., 1983; Rogers, 1975). According to

this theory, perceived risk and perceived self-efficacy are relevant aspects in risk

attitudes (Maddux et al., 1983; Rogers, 1975). Self-efficacy is the level of confidence in

one’s ability to undertake protective behaviour. In the context of risk perception in

poultry husbandry it refers to a person’s ability to protect himself against a hazard

related to poultry husbandry systems and will be referred to as self-protection.

Based on the literature above, we hypothesize the following in the context of public

health hazards in poultry husbandry. Given their diverging background in knowledge

and expertise, 1) risk perceptions of citizens will differ from professionals such as

poultry farmers and poultry veterinarians; 2) these differences in risk perceptions

may be attributed to differences in underlying psychological factors held by citizens

vis-à-vis professionals; 3) the perceived ability to protect themselves against hazards

related to poultry husbandry will differ between citizens and professionals.

4

CHAPTER 4

84

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Survey

To gain insight into risk perceptions of public health hazards related to poultry

husbandry by different stakeholder groups and factors that may explain these risks

perceptions, a quantitative survey was done by means of an online questionnaire

among three key stakeholder groups in March and April 2014. The general public,

poultry farmers and poultry veterinarians were considered relevant stakeholder

groups. The opinions of the general public concerning adaptation of current or

development of new husbandry systems, most notably through NGO’s, has become

important (Boogaard et al., 2011). The general public was investigated in their role as

citizens, because citizens, without being necessarily consumers, participate in the

public debate about poultry husbandry (Harvey et al., 2013). Poultry famers’ opinions

were considered relevant because they are most directly involved in choosing

husbandry systems. Poultry veterinarians are the farmers’ key advisors on disease

prevention which makes their risk perceptions of interest.

Participants

The questionnaire was filled out by representatives of Dutch citizens, poultry farmers,

and poultry veterinarians. CentERdata (www.centerdata.nl), a research institute

specialized in online survey research by means of the CentERpanel, approached the

citizens. The CentERpanel is a representative sample of the Dutch population.

CentERdata approached 3,344 CentERpanel participants, of whom 2,373 (71.0%)

begun the questionnaire and 2,259 respondents (67.6%) completed the questionnaire.

We invited poultry farmers to participate in the questionnaire by a digital newsletter

of the Dutch organisation of poultry farmers (NOP), which was sent to about 3,000

people interested in poultry husbandry. Moreover, we posted several articles on

websites regarding poultry husbandry, such as the Dutch poultry magazine

(Pluimveehouderij1), and on a website regarding agriculture in general. The newsletter

and websites were all free available. Out of the 2,046 professional poultry farmers in

the Netherlands, 100 farmers (4.9%) completed the questionnaire. Veterinarians

registered with the Section Poultry Health (VGP) of the Royal Veterinary Association of


RISK PERCEPTIONS

85

the Netherlands (n = 144) were invited in an e-mail from CentERdata to participate in

the survey. Of this registered group 51 (35.4%) completed the questionnaire and of

them, 40 met our definition of poultry veterinarian – someone working more than

30% of their time as a veterinarian in the poultry sector – and were included for

analysis.

Questionnaire

The questionnaire was developed using literature review and input from a consulting

group consisting of experts and representatives of several stakeholder groups,

citizens, poultry farmers and poultry veterinarians. Prior to data collection, the survey

was pilot tested for clarity and comprehensibility of the questions by representatives

of the three stakeholder groups. Based on these comments the questionnaire was then

further revised and subsequently executed. Because the survey was part of a larger

research that was designed to explore perceptions of poultry husbandry, only

questions relevant for the study of risk perception are reported here. The

questionnaire consisted of different parts: 1) statements to assess knowledge, 2)

degree of self-protection, 3) underlying psychological factors of risk perception, 4) risk

perceptions of three public health hazards in four different husbandry systems, and 5)

questions regarding socio-demographic characteristics.

Measures

Knowledge As a first check to verify whether the knowledge of the three stakeholder groups

differs regarding the three public health hazards, the question was asked before any

additional information about the hazards or husbandry systems was provided. To

assess the knowledge a statement was included regarding the disease caused by each

of the respective hazards (Table 4.1). The respondents were asked to indicate for each

statement whether it was true or false. They could also choose for the option “I do not

know”.

4

CHAPTER 4

86

Table 4.1 Statements regarding three hazards with correct answers

Statement Correct answer

1. Campylobacter, an intestinal bacterium present in chicken, is the most important cause of intestinal infections in humans.

True

2. All bird flu viruses are a threat to public health. False 3. Prolonged intake of dioxin may cause cancer. True

Self-protection To measure the ability of self-protection we asked respondents to rate to what extent

they are able to protect themselves against the three public health hazards. Because

the respondents might not know the specific hazards, the questionnaire did not

present the names of the hazards, but wordings that reflect the hazards, namely:

“chicken pathogens spread through the air’, “pathogens on broiler meat” and

“chemical substances in eggs”. Respondents could rate the degree of self-protection

against these hazards on a five-point Likert scale ranging from “absolutely not” to

“absolutely yes”.

Underlying psychological factors Based on the literature we selected underlying psychological factors of risk perception

that were relevant for this research. To research these underlying psychological

factors of risk perception, 11 statements were formulated, which reflect the following

factors: unknown by the people exposed, trust in experts, severity of the

consequences, voluntariness, the type of the hazard (bacteria vs chemicals) and

personal control (Table 4.2).

Table 4.2 Psychological factors of risk perception and statements based on these factors of risk perception

Psychological factors of risk perception

Statement reflecting psychological factors of risk perception

Unknown There is no information about the health consequences Trust in experts Experts state that health consequences are little Severity (mild) People may get an eye infection from it Severity (medium) People may get diarrhea from it Severity (severe) A few people will get cancer from it Severity (fatal) Someone may die from it Voluntariness People may get ill when being around a poultry farm Voluntariness People may get ill when eating chicken that is not cooked well enough Type of hazard Bacteria are present on chicken meat Type of hazard Chemicals are present in eggs Personal control People themselves may take measures to prevent the risk

RISK PERCEPTIONS

87

Respondents were asked to what extent they perceived the situation as being risky:

“To what extent are you concerned to get ill from chickens, broiler meat or eggs in the

following situations?” They could rate their concern on a five-point Likert scale

ranging from “absolutely not” to “absolutely yes”. Because people tend to perceive

personal risks lower than risks for other people (Weinstein, 1982), we asked explicitly

to rate the risks for themselves.

Risk perceptions To gain insight into risk perceptions, participants were asked to score the public

health risks of 1) Campylobacter on broiler meat for broilers kept in a respectively

conventional, a conventional plus, a free-range system with outdoor access and in an

organic system, 2) the public health risk of bird flu, and 3) of dioxin in eggs for laying

hens kept in respectively colony cages, an indoor non-cage system, a free-range system

with outdoor access and in an organic system. A short description of the husbandry

systems was provided as is shown in Table 4.3.

Table 4.3 Descriptions of the four broiler and laying hen husbandry systems

Husbandry system Description

Broilers

Conventional free-range on litter, age at slaughter 42 days Conventional plus free-range on litter, a little more space, enrichment, age at slaughter 56 days Free-range outdoor free-range on litter, more space, enrichment, outdoor access, age at slaughter 56

days Organic free-range on litter, more space, enrichment, outdoor access, organic feed, age at

slaughter 70 days Laying hens

Colony cages cages for groups of 80 hens, littered area, nests, perches Indoor non-cage free-range on litter and/ or multi-tiered, with nests, perches, a little more space Free-range outdoor free-range on litter and/ or multi-tiered, with nests, perches, more space, outdoor

access Organic free-range on litter and/ or multi-tiered with nests, perches, more space, outdoor

access, beaks are not treated, organic feed

Also for each hazard the following additional info was given:

- Campylobacter is an intestinal bacterium from chicken. A Campylobacter

contamination may cause an intestinal infection in humans.

- Bird flu viruses are transmissible between different bird species and are usually

not contagious to humans. Bird flu viruses are changing constantly and in future,

bird flu might cause infection and disease in humans.

4

CHAPTER 4

88

- Dioxin is a chemical substance, which is present in various products from animal

origin. In humans, prolonged intake of dioxin may cause cancer.

The respondents could score the public health risk of three hazards in the four

different husbandry systems on a five-point Likert scale ranging from “very low” to

“very high”. They could also opt for the answer option “I do not know”.

Socio-demographic characteristics Socio-demographic characteristics have been shown to be associated with perceptions

of risk (Finucane et al., 2000b; Slovic, 1999) and perceptions of animals and animal

welfare (Cohen et al., 2012; Kendall et al., 2006; Knight et al., 2004; Vanhonacker et

al., 2007). Therefore, the last part of the questionnaire contained questions regarding

socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents: gender, age, educational level,

urbanisation level of current residence childhood residence, having children (yes or

no), household income, pet ownership (yes or no), frequency of meat consumption,

and whether they donate to a nature or animal welfare organisation. The main socio-

demographic features of the respondents are presented in Table 4.4. Compared to the

data from the Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) in the Netherlands the citizens’

sample was slightly overrepresented with older people, and higher educated people.

Poultry farmers and poultry veterinarians were predominantly male, which was

representative for these professional groups.


Citizens (n = 2259)

Poultry farmers (n = 100)

Poultry veterinarians (n = 41) CBS1

Gender (%) Male 52.2 88.0 80.5 49.2

Female 47.8 12.0 19.5 50.8

Age (%) 15 - 34 years 16.6 11.0 12.2 29.3

35 - 54 years 36.8 73.0 51.2 34.2

> 55 years 46.6 16.0 36.6 36.5

Education (%) Low 26.7 28.0 0.0 30.9

Intermediate 29.3 43.0 0.0 41.0

High (Bachelor / Master) 44.0 29.0 100.0 28.1 1 Data from CBS Statistics Netherlands dated 01-03-2014

RISK PERCEPTIONS

89

Data analyses

To process and analyse data SPSS 22.0 was used. To compute mean scores ± standard

errors for the risk perceptions of the three hazards in the four different husbandry

systems, the answer “I do not know” was recoded into missing. For each risk, the

percentage of “I do not know” scores was calculated. The association between 1) mean

scores for risk perceptions of the individual hazards within a husbandry system, and

2) the stakeholder groups was explored by analysis of variances. ANOVA was done if

variances were homogeneous according to Levene’s test. If variances were not

homogeneous, the Welch test was used instead. If the effect of the stakeholder groups

on the mean risk perception scores was significant (p < 0.05) using ANOVA F-test, the

post-hoc Games-Howell test for multiple comparisons was done to analyse differences

between individual stakeholder groups. The effect of socio-demographic

characteristics of citizens on the risk perceptions of the three hazards in four different

husbandry systems was analysed by calculating Person’s chi-square.

RESULTS

Knowledge regarding hazards

The assessment of knowledge regarding the disease caused by Campylobacter, avian

influenza and dioxin confirmed that the context-specific knowledge of the stakeholder

groups differed between citizens and the professional groups (Table 4.5). From the

Table 4.5 Knowledge regarding public health hazards in citizens (n = 2259), poultry farmers (n = 100), and poultry veterinarians (n = 41)

Statement Citizens Poultry farmers Poultry veterinarians

Campylobacter Correct (%) 20.8 40.0 63.4

Incorrect (%) 10.0 45.0 29.3

I do not know (%) 69.1 15.0 7.3 Avian influenza Correct (%) 33.2 78.0 80.5

Incorrect (%) 36.7 17.0 17.1

I do not know (%) 30.1 5.0 2.4 Dioxin Correct (%) 59.4 90.0 90.2

Incorrect (%) 2.3 2.0 0

I do not know (%) 38.3 8.0 9.8

4

CHAPTER 4

90

three stakeholder groups, poultry veterinarians answered the most statements

correctly, and citizens were the least accurate. As could also be expected, citizens

responded more often than the farmers and veterinarians “I do not know”, which

indicates a higher level of experienced uncertainty concerning these topics. Compared

to the other statements, the statement regarding Campylobacter was most often

answered with “I do not know”. The statement regarding dioxin in eggs was answered

most often correctly as compared to the other statements.

Risk perceptions

To gain insight into the risk perceptions of public health hazards related to poultry

husbandry, perceived risks were surveyed in the three stakeholder groups. The

perceived risk of (1) Campylobacter contamination of broiler meat, of (2) avian

influenza, and of (3) dioxin in eggs, from broiler or hens, kept in four different

husbandry systems are presented in Table 4.6. The mean risk scores of the citizens

showed a different pattern from the mean risk scores of the two professional groups.

Citizens expressed higher risk perceptions of the three hazards when poultry is kept in

the indoor systems (conventional, conventional plus, colony cages, or indoor non-cage

systems) relative to farmers and veterinarians (p < 0.05). Farmers, however,

perceived the risks of the three hazards in the outdoor systems (free-range and

organic systems) higher (p < 0.05) than did citizens. Also veterinarians scored the

risks of Campylobacter and avian influenza in organic systems, and of dioxin in eggs

from hens kept in both free-range outdoor and organic systems higher (p < 0.05)

compared to citizens. The largest differences we observed between the scores from the

citizens and the farmers. Farmers perceived the risks in indoor systems lower than did

veterinarians, but this difference was significant (p < 0.05) only for the perceived risk

of Campylobacter in the indoor systems. Citizens perceived risk of dioxin in eggs from

chicken kept in an organic system lowest from the three public health hazards. It is

interesting to notice that the range in mean scores from citizens is lower than the

range in mean scores from the professionals.

RISK PERCEPTIONS

91

4

CHAPTER 4

92

Self-protection

To understand why the risk perceptions of public health hazards in poultry husbandry

differ between the three stakeholder groups, the degree of self-protection against

three hazards was surveyed. The mean scores for the extent to which participants

think to be able to protect themselves against three hazards are presented in Table 4.7.

All three stakeholder groups scored their ability to protect themselves against the

hazard “pathogens on chicken meat’ as highest of the three hazards. However, for

“pathogens on chicken meat’ the mean score from citizens was lower (p < 0.001) than

the mean scores from farmers and veterinarians. The mean scores for the hazard

“chicken pathogens that spread through air” did not differ among the three groups.

Veterinarians scored the ability to protect themselves against “chemicals in eggs”

lower (p < 0.05) than did citizens and farmers. Compared to farmers and citizens,

veterinarians showed the largest range in mean scores for self-protection against all

three hazards.

Table 4.7 Mean self-protection ability (±SE) against public health hazards in citizens, poultry farmers, and poultry veterinarians (1 = absolutely not; 5 = absolutely yes)

Citizens Poultry farmers

Poultry veterinarians

Test statistics p-value

Pathogens on chicken meat

3.65a ± 0.024 4.35b ± 0.121 4.56b ± 0.202 F(2, 83.04) = 53.67 < 0.001

Chicken pathogens spread through air

2.71 ± 0.024 2.87 ± 0.091 2.85 ± 0.116 F(2, 2379) = 1.12 0.327

Chemicals in eggs 2.66a ± 0.027 2.60a ± 0.141 1.78b ± 0.146 F(2, 81.44) = 17.34 < 0.001 a,b Means within a row with different superscripts differ significantly (p < 0.05, Post-hoc Games Howell multiple comparisons test).

Underlying psychological factors

The means scores for statements reflecting underlying psychological factors of risk

perception - concern to get ill from chicken, chicken meat or eggs - given by citizens,

poultry farmers, and poultry veterinarians, are presented in Table 4.8. The range of

the mean scores from farmers and veterinarians was larger than the range of mean

scores from citizens. Citizens were more concerned (p < 0.05) for 9 out of 11

statements than were farmers and for 7 out of 11 statements than were veterinarians.

Farmers only scored the statement reflecting the factor personal control, “people

themselves can take measures to prevent the risk”, higher (p < 0.05) than citizens did.

The concern for “people may get ill when being around a poultry farm”, a statement

RISK PERCEPTIONS

93

4

CHAPTER 4

94

which reflects voluntariness, shows a considerable difference (F(2, 2,397) = 102.15; p

< 0.001) among the three stakeholder groups. Farmers scored this latter statement,

“people may get ill when being around a poultry farm” lower (p < 0.05) than

veterinarians, while farmers scored all other statements not did differently from the

veterinarians. The three groups scored the other statement reflecting voluntariness,

“people could become ill when eating chicken that is not cooked well enough” not

differently. The structure of the ratings did not differ much among the stakeholder

group. However, citizens scored the concern for “people may get ill when eating

chicken that is not cooked well enough” as highest, followed by “bacteria are present

on chicken meat”, while farmers and veterinarians scored the concern for personal

control, “people themselves can take measures to prevent the risk”, as highest.

Socio-demographic characteristics The potential effect of socio-demographic characteristics on risks perception scores

from citizens was analysed. Gender and childhood residence were related to the risk

perception scores for the three risks in the four different husbandry systems (Chi-

square test; p < 0.05 and p < 0.001). Compared to male respondents, female

respondents perceived the risks of the three hazards in indoor systems higher (p <

0.05) and in outdoor systems lower (p < 0.01), and females answered more often “I do

not know”. Respondents who grew up on a farm more often scored the risks in indoor

systems lower (p < 0.01), and in outdoor systems higher (p < 0.01) than respondents

who did not grow up on a farm. Respondents who eat meat one time a week or less

perceived the risks in the indoor systems higher (p < 0.001) than respondents who eat

meat more often. Age, educational level, household income, children (yes or no), pet

owner (yes or no) and donate to a nature or animal welfare organization had a

significant effect (p < 0.05) on one or more risk perceptions, but these effects did not

point into one clear direction and were difficult to interpret. Risk perceptions were not

significantly associated with social class, and urbanization level of current residence.

RISK PERCEPTIONS

95

DISCUSSION

Last decades society has increasingly expressed concerns regarding livestock

husbandry and especially regarding intensive animal husbandry (Bergstra et al., 2017;

Hansen et al., 2003). Citizens prefer husbandry systems that offer outdoor access to

chickens, but these outdoor systems may have negative consequences for public health

and food safety risks. Insight into stakeholder views regarding risk perceptions

provides crucial input for adaptation of current or development of new husbandry

systems, which can count on societal support. Therefore, the objective of this research

was firstly to gain insight into risk perceptions of three public health hazards related

to keeping poultry in various husbandry systems, and secondly to explore how these

risk perceptions of the stakeholder groups may be explained. The present investigation

is the first study that reports risk perceptions of public health hazards in different

poultry husbandry systems by three key stakeholder groups: Dutch citizens, poultry

farmers, and poultry veterinarians. Regarding the Dutch citizens, a representative

panel was used in our study. However, only 4.9% of the total number of Dutch poultry

farmers was included in this research, and these participated because they were

invited by announcement in magazines and newsletters targeted at poultry farmers.

Although the educational level of the farmers ranged from lower education to higher

education and shows a variegated distribution, it should be noted that the selection

method of poultry farmers could be biased, for example towards more knowledgeable

farmers.

Risk perceptions poultry husbandry systems

Our results indicate that the stakeholder groups assess the public health risks related

to poultry husbandry differently. Citizens perceived the public health risks of

Campylobacter contamination of broiler meat, altered dioxin levels in eggs and of

avian influenza in chickens kept in indoor systems higher than they perceived these

risks in chickens kept in outdoor systems. Farmers and veterinarians, however,

perceived these risks higher when chickens are kept in a system with outdoor access

than when they are kept in an indoor system. According to literature the “real” risks of

these hazards, avian influenza, Campylobacter, and dioxin in eggs, are higher in

outdoor than in indoor poultry husbandry systems (Bouwknegt et al., 2004; Gonzales

et al., 2013; Kijlstra et al., 2009; Koch et al., 2006; Schoeters et al., 2006; Sommer et

4

CHAPTER 4

96

al., 2013). However, it is not clear what the “real” risks for consumers’ health are, and

to what extent these hazards imply a higher public health risk when chickens are kept

in outdoor instead of indoor systems.

Literature describes the risks for introduction of avian influenza, for contamination of

eggs with dioxin, or for contamination of meat with Campylobacter, and not the “real”

risks for citizens or for consumers of eggs or broiler meat. To what extent a hazard is

a risk to public health depends also on several aspects, such as prevention measures

and consumer behaviour. For example, meat from broilers kept in outdoor systems is

more often contaminated with Campylobacter, but meat from all broiler husbandry

systems may be contaminated with Campylobacter and meat may get contaminated

during slaughter (EFSA, 2011; Wagenaar et al., 2013). Thus, independent from the

origin of the broiler meat, human infections can occur and depend on hygienic

handling and preparation of chicken meat (Bell et al., 2009; EFSA, 2011). With regard

to dioxin in eggs, it appears that eggs have only a small impact on the total dietary

dioxin intake (De Vries et al., 2006; EFSA, 2012; Kiviranta et al., 2004) and dioxin

levels in eggs from outdoor chickens can be monitored not to exceed a certain level.

Outdoor access is a risk factor for avian influenza, but indoor poultry was also infected

with avian influenza. In high risk periods, avian influenza transmission from wild bird

to chickens may be prevented by keeping outdoor poultry temporarily indoors. Avian

influenza transmission from birds to humans is rare (Wildoner, 2016) and if a flock is

infected, the flock is culled as soon as possible, so the infection risk for the general

public is small. Although the “real” risks of Campylobacter, dioxins and avian influenza

for the public health are not clear, it seems that professionals perceive these risks in

different husbandry systems better in accordance with literature than do citizens. The

professionals and especially the farmers, however, may have an optimistic bias of the

public health risks related to the indoor systems and they may overestimate the risks

related to the outdoor systems.

Role of knowledge

The observed differences between risk perceptions of the stakeholder groups are in

line with earlier studies, which describe that lay people perceive risks differently from

experts (Hansen et al., 2003; Jensen et al., 2005; Slovic, 1987; Zingg et al., 2012). The

general public expresses more concerns regarding modern methods of food production

RISK PERCEPTIONS

97

than experts do (Hansen et al., 2003; Ueland et al., 2012). As explanatory factor of

these differences put forward in the literature is the knowledge deficit of lay people,

which implies that their lack of knowledge and understanding of the modern

production methods causes these concerns. The present study confirms that citizens

were less knowledgeable than were farmers and veterinarians regarding disease

caused by the hazards Campylobacter, avian influenza, and dioxin. Citizens may be

considered as lay people and poultry veterinarians may be considered as experts on

public health hazards related to poultry husbandry. However, it is less certain whether

poultry farmers can be considered per se as experts regarding public health hazards.

Thus, the difference between citizens and professionals might not be caused by just

knowledge differences. Also, in literature, the knowledge discrepancy as sole cause of

the lay - expert differences in risk perception has been questioned (Hansen et al.,

2003; Rowe et al., 2001; Sjoberg, 1999). That is, differences in risk perceptions may

also be caused by differences in views on the degree of self-protection, underlying

psychological factors and socio-demographic characteristics.

Self-protection

Based on the knowledge and experience of the professionals it was expected that they

would rate their capacity of self-protection higher than citizens. Indeed, farmers and

veterinarians considered their ability to protect themselves against “pathogens on

chicken meat” higher than did citizens. Based on the professionals’ higher ability of

self-protection, one might think that the professionals might perceive the public health

risk due to Campylobacter on broiler meat and dioxin in eggs lower than do citizens.

The professionals scored the risks for Campylobacter and dioxin in eggs in the indoor

systems lower than citizens, but they scored these risks in outdoor systems higher

then did citizens. These higher risk perceptions related to outdoor systems in

professionals seem not to correspond with the professionals’ higher self-protection.

So, the ability to protect themselves could not explain the differences in risk

perceptions between citizens and the professionals.

Underlying psychological factors

Previous studies on underlying psychological factors of risk perception revealed that

risk perception is influenced by severity of the consequences, unknown by the people

4

CHAPTER 4

98

exposed, voluntariness, trust in experts, type of hazard and personal control. In our

study, we asked participant to indicate their degree of concern for statements

reflecting these factors in the context of poultry husbandry and the three public health

hazards. Citizens were more concerned for 9 out of 11 factors than were farmers and

for 7 out of 11 factors than were veterinarians. The scores for the statement “people

may get ill when being around a poultry farm”, which reflects personal control,

differed most between the farmers and citizens. The farmers did not perceive being

around a farm as a risk, while literature indicates that being around a poultry farm is

a risk to get ill from Campylobacter or avian influenza (Havelaar et al., 2009;

Koopmans et al., 2004). As this statement reflects personal control, farmers may feel

that they have control in this situation. Control is an important factor of risk denial

(Sjöberg, 2000), which may cause an optimistic bias regarding the public health risks

related to poultry farms by these professionals. However, it does not explain why the

professionals perceive the risks of the indoor systems lower and of the outdoor

systems higher than do citizens. Other risk factors based on the psychometric model

could not explain clearly the differences in risks perceptions between the stakeholder

groups.


The socio-demographic characteristics of citizens, gender and childhood residence,

were associated with risk perceptions. Female citizens perceived the risks in indoor

systems higher and in outdoor systems lower than did males. This is in line with

earlier studies on risk perceptions, which report that women assess risks as more

problematic than do men (Finucane et al., 2000b; Slovic, 1999; Zingg et al., 2012). The

professional groups in this study were predominantly male and this might have

influenced the risk perception of these professional groups. Also, the childhood

residence of citizens was of influence and as most farmers are spent their childhood on

a farm, this period of childhood may be of influence on risk perception. This implies

that the perceptions of females and people who did not spend their childhood on a

farm should be considered when designing new husbandry systems in order to gauge

the social acceptability of the system.

RISK PERCEPTIONS

99

Affect

In the specific context of poultry husbandry, factors that we did not survey may have

influenced risk perceptions. Two concepts that may be helpful in this regard, affect

and stigmatisation, will be discussed here. The risk assessment of public health

hazards in poultry husbandry is complex and requires some knowledge regarding both

poultry husbandry systems and the hazards. When risk judgement is complex or when

people lack knowledge, they make a more intuitive and holistic judgement and refer to

more general knowledge, instead of making a deliberate judgement (Slovic et al.,

2007; Van den Heuvel et al., 2008). In this intuitive judgement, affect plays an

important role (Finucane et al., 2000a; Slovic et al., 2007). “Affect” refers to an

emotional state, and is defined a positive (like) or negative (dislike) evaluative feeling

towards a stimulus. It means that positive or negative feelings towards a husbandry

system (i.e. the stimulus), may influence risk perceptions related to that system. This

would mean that people will use their positive or negative feelings regarding, for

example poultry husbandry systems, hen welfare, or healthiness of the poultry

products, to assess the public health risks.

Citizens Citizens perceived outdoor systems as the most desirable husbandry systems for

broilers (Van Asselt et al., 2015) and laying hens (Chapter 2). They also view

naturalness and outdoor access important for animal welfare (Bergstra et al., 2015;

Vanhonacker et al., 2008), and consider organic food healthier and safer than

conventional food (Aertsens et al., 2009; Harper et al., 2002). Citizens’ positive

attitudes towards outdoor and especially towards organic husbandry systems, could

therefore influence the assessment public health risk related to the poultry husbandry

systems.

Professionals Affect may have also influenced the risk perceptions of professional stakeholders –

farmers and veterinarians. It has been shown that conventional farmers often have

negative attitudes towards outdoor husbandry systems (Gocsik et al., 2016; Stadig et

al., 2016a; Van Asselt et al., 2015; Chapter 2). Several reasons may underlie this

negative attitude. First of all, farmers may worry about the risk of disease spread of

4

CHAPTER 4

100

among others, avian influenza (Gocsik et al., 2015), most notably because in case of an

outbreak of avian influenza in a flock, all chickens have to be culled. Also,

Campylobacter contamination of meat or altered dioxin levels in eggs may have

negative consequences, e.g., financial impact, for the farmers. Secondly, the negative

attitude of famers may be caused by their current farm characteristics that might not

be suitable to convert to an outdoor system (Gocsik et al., 2015). The professionals and

especially the poultry farmers may have extended their negative attitudes towards the

outdoor systems to the perceptions of public health risks in the outdoor systems. This

may explain why the famers assessed the risk for the three hazards in the outdoor

systems ranging from high till very high.

Stigma Another mechanism that may be of influence on the observed risk perceptions is

stigmatisation. A stigma is a lasting and negative affective response that may

dominate the perception of a certain issue (Lofstedt, 2010; Walker, 2013), and often

originates from media images. Citizens’ knowledge concerning risks in poultry

husbandry derives mainly from media, which regards mainly portrayals of problems of

intensive livestock husbandry, such as food scandals, animal disease outbreaks and the

dioxin affair (Te Velde et al., 2002). These media portrayals may have led to

stigmatisation of intensive production systems, and poultry husbandry in particular.

Citizens’ negative attitudes towards intensive husbandry may have negatively

influenced their perception of public health risks of the more intensive indoor systems.

Underlying values

The results might suggest that differences between stakeholder groups can be

explained by differences in knowledge and experience, which resulted in a more

holistic and intuitive risk assessment. Hence, one might conclude that providing

information may bring the perceptions of the stakeholder groups more in accordance

with each other. However, there are several reasons why information provision may

fail. First of all, also in the professional groups affect seems to play a role. Secondly, in

the current post-trust society top down communication from experts to lay public does

not work (Lofstedt, 2010). And even if people have the same knowledge level, still the

acceptable level of risk may differ among people (Hansen et al., 2003). The acceptable

level of risk may depend on involved values (Hansen et al., 2003) and perceived

RISK PERCEPTIONS

101

benefits (Ueland et al., 2012). For example, in case people perceive a more ethical

production method important, they may accept greater public health risks (Jensen et

al., 2005). Also, other aspects, such as a better taste of meat from free-range broilers

(Stadig et al., 2016b) may be weighed against the public health risks. So, in the context

of poultry husbandry systems, trade-offs, such as between risks for human health and

benefits for poultry welfare, may be based on underlying values (Hayenhjelm et al.,

2012).

Implications

Differences in risk perceptions among and within stakeholder groups will have

consequences for the acceptability of the various husbandry systems. Citizens perceive

outdoor systems as better for public health and food safety, while most professionals

tend to have negative attitudes towards outdoor systems. The public health and food

safety risks may be higher in outdoor systems than in indoor systems, but these risks

related to outdoor systems may be controlled. Thus, outdoor systems could be social

acceptable poultry husbandry systems.

To adapt current or new husbandry systems that can count on societal support, views

of relevant stakeholder groups and multiple aspects such as animal welfare, public

health risks and underlying values should be considered integrally. Co-design (e.g.

Groot Koerkamp et al., 2008; Spoelstra et al., 2013) has proven to be a successful

design process that involves successfully multiple stakeholders and their opinions.

When trade-offs, such as between animal welfare and public health risks have to be

made, insight into underlying values might help to find consensus among stakeholders.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS



4

CHAPTER 4

102

REFERENCES

Aertsens, J., Verbeke, W., Mondelaers, K., & van Huylenbroeck, G. (2009). Personal determinants of organic food consumption: A review. British Food Journal, 111(10), 1140-1167. doi:10.1108/00070700910992961

Bejaei, M., Wiseman, K., & Cheng, K. M. (2011). Influences of demographic characteristics, attitudes, and preferences of consumers on table egg consumption in British Columbia, Canada. Poultry Science, 90(5), 1088-1095.

Bell, C., & Kyriakides, A. (2009). Campylobacter: a practical approach to the organism and its control in foods: Wiley-Blackwell.






Council of the European Union. (1999). Council Directive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 203, 53–57.

De Vries, M., Kwakkel, R. P., & Kijlstra, A. (2006). Dioxins in organic eggs: A review. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 54(2), 207-221.



Fife-Schaw, C., & Rowe, G. (1996). Public Perceptions of Everyday Food Hazards: A Psychometric Study. Risk Analysis, 16(4), 487-500. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1996.tb01095.x

Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., & Johnson, S. M. (2000a). The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13(1), 1-17.

Finucane, M. L., Slovic, P., Mertz, C. K., Flynn, J., & Satterfield, T. A. (2000b). Gender, race, and perceived risk: The 'white male' effect. Health, Risk and Society, 2(2), 170-172.

Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Combs, B. (1978). How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes toward technological risk and benefists. Policy Sciences(9), 127-152.

Gocsik, É., van der Lans, I. A., Lansink, A. G. J. M. O., & Saatkamp, H. W. (2016). Elicitation of preferences of Dutch broiler and pig farmers to support decision making on animal welfare. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 76, 75-86. doi:10.1016/j.njas.2015.11.006


RISK PERCEPTIONS

103




Harper, G. C., & Makatouni, A. (2002). Consumer perception of organic food production and farm animal welfare. British Food Journal, 104(3-5), 287-299. doi:10.1108/00070700210425723


Havelaar, A. H., van Pelt, W., Ang, C. W., Wagenaar, J. A., van Putten, J. P., Gross, U., & Newell, D. G. (2009). Immunity to Campylobacter: its role in risk assessment and epidemiology. Critical Reviews in Microbiology, 35(1), 1-22. doi:10.1080/10408410802636017

Hayenhjelm, M., & Wolff, J. (2012). The moral problem of risk impositions: A survey of the literature. European Journal of Philosophy, 20(SUPPL. 1), e26-e51. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0378.2011.00482.x

Heuer, O. E., Pedersen, K., Andersen, J., & Madsen, M. (2001). Prevalence and antimicrobial susceptibility of thermophilic Campylobacter in organic and conventional broiler flocks. Letters in Applied Microbiology, 33(4), 269-274. doi:10.1046/j.1472-765X.2001.00994.x


Kendall, H. A., Lobao, L. M., & Sharp, J. S. (2006). Public concern with animal well-being: Place, social structural location, and individual experience. Rural Sociology, 71(3), 399-428. doi:10.1526/003601106778070617

Kher, S. V., De Jonge, J., Wentholt, M. T., Deliza, R., de Andrade, J. C., Cnossen, H. J., . . . Frewer, L. J. (2013). Consumer perceptions of risks of chemical and microbiological contaminants associated with food chains: A cross-national study. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 37(1), 73-83. doi:10.1111/j.1470-6431.2011.01054.x



Kiviranta, H., Ovaskainen, M. L., & Vartiainen, T. (2004). Market basket study on dietary intake of PCDD/Fs, PCBs, and PBDEs in Finland. Environment International, 30(7), 923-932. doi:doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2004.03.002



Koopmans, M., Wilbrink, B., Conyn, M., Natrop, G., Van Der Nat, H., Vennema, H., . . . Bosman, A. (2004). Transmission of H7N7 avian influenza A virus to human beings during a large outbreak in commercial poultry farms in the Netherlands. Lancet, 363(9409), 587-593. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(04)15589-X

Krewski, D., Turner, M. C., Lemyre, L., & Lee, J. E. C. (2012). Expert vs. public perception of population health risks in Canada. Journal of Risk Research, 15(6), 601-625. doi:10.1080/13669877.2011.649297

4

CHAPTER 4

104

Leikas, S., Lindeman, M., Roininen, K., & Lähteenmäki, L. (2009). Who is responsible for food risks? The influence of risk type and risk characteristics. Appetite, 53(1), 123-126. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2009.05.003

Lofstedt, R. E. (2010). Viewpoint: Risk communication guidelines for Europe: A modest proposition. Journal of Risk Research, 13(1), 87-109. doi:10.1080/13669870903126176

Maddux, J. E., & Rogers, R. W. (1983). Protection motivation and self-efficacy: A revised theory of fear appeals and attitude change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19(5), 469-479. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(83)90023-9


Rogers, R. W. (1975). A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change. The Journal of psychology, 91(1), 93-114.

Rosenquist, H., Boysen, L., Krogh, A. L., Jensen, A. N., & Nauta, M. (2013). Campylobacter contamination and the relative risk of illness from organic broiler meat in comparison with conventional broiler meat. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 162(3), 226-230. doi:10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2013.01.022

Rowe, G., & Wright, G. (2001). Differences in expert and lay judgments of risk: Myth or reality? Risk Analysis, 21(2), 341-356.


Siegrist, M., Keller, C., & Kiers, H. A. L. (2006). Lay people's perception of food hazards: Comparing aggregated data and individual data. Appetite, 47(3), 324-332. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2006.05.012

Sjoberg, L. (1999). Risk perception by the public and by experts: A dilemma in risk management. Human Ecology Review, 6(2), 1-9.

Sjöberg, L. (2000). Factors in risk perception. Risk Analysis, 20(1), 1-11. doi:10.1111/0272-4332.00001

Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236(4799), 280-285. Slovic, P. (1993). Perceived Risk, Trust, and Democracy. Risk Analysis, 13(6), 675-682.

doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb01329.x Slovic, P. (1999). Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Surveying the risk- assessment

battlefield. Risk Analysis, 19(4), 689-701. doi:10.1023/A:1007041821623 Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2007). The affect heuristic. European

Journal of Operational Research, 177(3), 1333-1352. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2005.04.006 Sommer, H. M., Heuer, O. E., Sørensen, A. I. V., & Madsen, M. (2013). Analysis of factors

important for the occurrence of Campylobacter in Danish broiler flocks. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 111(1-2), 100-111. doi:10.1016/j.prevetmed.2013.04.004

Sparks, P., & Shepherd, R. (1994). Public perceptions of the potential hazards associated with food production and food consumption: An empirical study. Risk Analysis, 14(5), 799-806. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1994.tb00291.x


Stadig, L. M., Ampe, B. A., Van Gansbeke, S., Van Den Bogaert, T., D'Haenens, E., Heerkens, J. L. T., & Tuyttens, F. A. M. (2016a). Survey of egg farmers regarding the ban on conventional cages in the EU and their opinion of alternative layer housing systems in Flanders, Belgium. Poultry Science, 95(3), 715-725. doi:10.3382/ps/pev334

Stadig, L. M., Rodenburg, T. B., Reubens, B., Aerts, J., Duquenne, B., & Tuyttens, F. A. M. (2016b). Effects of free-range access on production parameters and meat quality, composition and taste in slow-growing broiler chickens. Poultry Science, 95(12), 2971-2978. doi:10.3382/ps/pew226

RISK PERCEPTIONS

105


Ueland, Ø., Gunnlaugsdottir, H., Holm, F., Kalogeras, N., Leino, O., Luteijn, J. M., . . . Verhagen, H. (2012). State of the art in benefit-risk analysis: Consumer perception. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 50(1), 67-76.

Van Asselt, M., Ekkel, E. D., Kemp, B., & Stassen, E. N. (2015). Best broiler husbandry system and perceived importance of production aspects by Dutch citizens, poultry farmers and veterinarians. In D. E. Dumitras, I. M. Jitea, & S. Aerts (Eds.), Know your food. Food ethics and innovation. (pp. 138-143). Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers Books.

Van den Heuvel, T., Renes, R. J., Gremmen, B., Van Woerkum, C., & Van Trijp, H. (2008). Consumers' images regarding genomics as a tomato breeding technology: "Maybe it can provide a more tasty tomato". Euphytica, 159(1-2), 207-216. doi:10.1007/s10681-007-9474-7

van der Zee, H., Wit, B., & Vollema, A. R. (2005). Survey pathogenen en bacteriele resitentie in kipproducten uit biologische teelt, jaar 2004. (Project nr: OT04H005). Retrieved from Zutphen:

Van Overbeke, I., Duchateau, L., De Zutter, L., Albers, G., & Ducatelle, R. (2006). A comparison survey of organic and conventional broiler chickens for infectious agents affecting health and food safety. Avian Diseases, 50(2), 196-200.


Van Overmeire, I., Pussemier, L., Waegeneers, N., Hanot, V., Windal, I., Boxus, L., . . . Goeyens, L. (2009a). Assessment of the chemical contamination in home-produced eggs in Belgium: General overview of the CONTEGG study. Science of the Total Environment, 407(15), 4403-4410. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.10.066

Van Overmeire, I., Waegeneers, N., Sioen, I., Bilau, M., De Henauw, S., Goeyens, L., . . . Eppe, G. (2009b). PCDD/Fs and dioxin-like PCBs in home-produced eggs from Belgium: Levels, contamination sources and health risks. Science of the Total Environment, 407(15), 4419-4429. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.11.058



Wagenaar, J. A., French, N. P., & Havelaar, A. H. (2013). Preventing Campylobacter at the Source: Why Is It So Difficult? Clinical Infectious Diseases, 57(11), 1600-1606. doi:10.1093/cid/cit555

Walker, V. R. (2013). Defining and identifying stigma. In J. Flynn, P. Slovic, & H. Kunreuther (Eds.), Risk, media and stigma: Understanding public challenges to modern science and technology (pp. 353-360). London: Routledge.

Weinstein, N. D. (1982). Unrealistic optimism about susceptibility to health problems. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 5(4), 441-460. doi:10.1007/BF00845372

Wildoner, D. A. (2016). What's New with Pandemic Flu. Clinical Microbiology Newsletter, 38(4), 27-31. doi:10.1016/j.clinmicnews.2016.02.001

Zingg, A., & Siegrist, M. (2012). Lay people's and experts' risk perception and acceptance of vaccination and culling strategies to fight animal epidemics. Journal of Risk Research, 15(1), 53-66.

4

The trade-off between chicken welfare and public

health risks in poultry husbandry: significance of

moral convictions

5 Accepted for publication in Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics

van Asselt










the Netherlands; 3 Department of Applied Research,



Almere, the Netherlands.

CHAPTER 5

108

ABSTRACT

Welfare-friendly outdoor poultry husbandry systems are associated with potentially

higher public health risks for certain hazards, which results in a dilemma: whether to

choose a system that improves chicken welfare or a system that reduces these public

health risks. We studied the views of citizens and poultry farmers on judging the

dilemma, relevant moral convictions and moral arguments in a practical context. By

means of an online questionnaire, citizens (n = 2259) and poultry farmers (n = 100)

judged three practical cases, which illustrate the dilemma of improving chicken

welfare or reducing public health risks for Campylobacter, avian influenza and dioxin.

Furthermore, they scored the importance of moral arguments and to what extend they

agreed with moral convictions related to humans and chickens. Citizens were more

likely than farmers to choose a system that benefits chicken welfare at the expense of

public health. These different judgments could be explained by differing moral

convictions and valuations of moral arguments. Judgments of citizens and farmers

were associated with moral arguments and convictions, predominantly with those

regarding the value of chickens and naturalness. Citizens agreed stronger with moral

convictions regarding the intrinsic value of chickens and regarding naturalness than

farmers did, while farmers agreed stronger with conviction regarding fairness. We

argue that opinions of citizens and farmers are context-dependent, which may explain

the differences between these groups. It implies that opinions of different stakeholder

groups should be considered in order to achieve successful innovations in poultry

husbandry, which are supported by society.

Key words: animal welfare, moral convictions, poultry husbandry, public health,

stakeholder views

TRADE-OFF

109

INTRODUCTION

In intensive poultry husbandry systems, which were introduced after World War II,

large numbers of chickens are kept at high stocking densities in order to produce

ample and affordable poultry products efficiently (Rollin, 2004). The drawbacks of

these intensive indoor systems with the focus on high production are animal welfare

issues, such as production-related diseases and behavioural problems. These welfare

issues in the intensive systems led to societal concerns regarding poultry husbandry,

which focused on chickens’ opportunities to express natural behaviour and lead

natural lives (Eurobarometer, 2005; Fraser et al., 1997; McGlone, 2001; Rollin, 2007).

Consequently, the general public, led by NGO campaigns, called for alternative

husbandry systems for chickens that are more animal welfare-friendly, offering

animals more space and freedom to express natural behaviour, e.g. by means of

outdoor husbandry systems (Chapter 2, 3).

The more welfare-friendly poultry husbandry systems, however, are associated with

higher public health risks for certain hazards, such as Campylobacter, avian influenza,

and dioxin. For example, for broiler chickens, outdoor access and an older age at

slaughter are risk factors for an increased Campylobacter prevalence in broilers and on

broiler meat (Bouwknegt et al., 2004; EFSA, 2011; Sommer et al., 2013). Outdoor

access for laying hens increases the risk of introducing avian influenza into a flock

(Gonzales et al., 2013; Koch et al., 2006) and of elevated dioxin levels in eggs (EFSA,

2012; Schoeters et al., 2006) relative to indoor systems. These examples show that

adaptations in husbandry systems in order to improve chicken welfare, such as

outdoor access, may be a risk to public health. They imply that the choice for

husbandry systems, in particular for indoor or outdoor systems, causes dilemmas

necessitating choices between chicken welfare and certain public health and food

safety risks. The question is how people – both the general public and poultry farmers

– balance the interests of chickens against those of humans when faced with the

dilemma of choosing a system that improves chicken welfare or reduces public health

and food safety risks. An understanding of how to achieve this balance and approach

the dilemma is useful for developing or adapting husbandry systems in such way that

they can count on support from society.

5

CHAPTER 5

110

At the farm level, the dilemma of improving chicken welfare or reducing public health

risks in poultry husbandry is influenced by many factors, such as scientific facts,

fundamental moral values and convictions considering humans and animals.

Fundamental moral values are deeply rooted beliefs that are founded on knowledge,

and multiple social, cultural, and religious aspects, and are shared in society

(Beauchamp et al., 2009; Cohen et al., 2009). In individuals or in a group of

individuals, such as farmers, these fundamental moral values are influenced by

knowledge, personal experiences with animals, and belief in mental capacity of

animals (Knight et al., 2008; Knight et al., 2009), and become personal moral

convictions regarding animals and animal husbandry. In a society or in a specific

group, people may share moral convictions concerning humans and animals. For

example, in the Netherlands most people consider animals to have intrinsic value, and

67% of people consider humans to be superior to animals (Cohen et al., 2012). In a

practical case, however, moral convictions are shaped to the specific context and the

entities involved, and are balanced against each other and relevant facts (Childress et

al., 2002; Cohen et al., 2009; Cohen et al., 2016). It may result in people making

different judgments regarding the dilemma of improving chicken welfare or reducing


Previous studies have shown that citizens and farmers have different views on 1) the

preferred husbandry systems for laying hens and broiler chickens (Chapter 2; Stadig et

al., 2016; Stadig et al., 2015; Van Asselt et al., 2015b); and 2) the importance of

various issues such as animal welfare and public health risks (Chapter 2; Stadig et al.,

2015; Van Asselt et al., 2015b; Vanhonacker et al., 2016; Vanhonacker et al., 2008).

For poultry husbandry, it has been shown that compared to poultry farmers, citizens

have more positive views regarding outdoor poultry husbandry systems (Chapter 2;

Van Asselt et al., 2015a; Vanhonacker et al., 2016). Moreover, citizens evaluate chicken

welfare in outdoor systems as better (Chapter 3; Van Asselt et al., 2017; Vanhonacker

et al., 2016), and certain public health hazards in outdoor systems as less risky than do

poultry farmers (Van Asselt et al., 2018). These different views of poultry farmers and

citizens on poultry husbandry systems may be based on different moral convictions

related to humans and chickens. It is expected that citizens and poultry farmers will

make different judgments regarding a dilemma of improving chicken welfare or

reducing public health risks, because they may have different views on the importance

of various moral arguments related to their moral convictions. As yet, no studies have

TRADE-OFF

111

compared citizens’ and farmers’ judgments regarding a dilemma of improving chicken

welfare or reducing public health risks, and moral convictions and arguments

involved. Therefore, the objective of this study is to fill this knowledge gap.

To study dilemmas in society and the moral convictions involved, multi-criteria

frameworks have been developed which integrate values from the consequentialist and

deontological perspectives. These frameworks give insight into various moral

convictions and arguments regarding fundamental moral values such as autonomy,

justice, and wellbeing for different interest groups, such as farmers, consumers, and

animals (Beauchamp et al., 2009; Mepham, 2000). Other researchers have elaborated

further on these frameworks and adapted them in order to study moral convictions

and arguments regarding humans and animals in a specific context, such as livestock

husbandry or food production (e.g. Bergstra et al., 2015; Bruijnis et al., 2015; Cohen et

al., 2009; Gremmen et al., 2018; Jensen et al., 2011; Mepham, 2000; Michalopoulos et

al., 2008). These frameworks, however, are not specific to the dilemmas of improving

chicken welfare or reducing public health risks and do not cover the debates on these

dilemmas. To study the judgments of the dilemma, and relevant moral convictions and

arguments of citizens and poultry farmers, existing frameworks should be adapted in

order to develop a framework that considers moral convictions and arguments

specifically for the dilemma presented.

To study the judgment of the dilemma, three practical cases were used. For the cases,

three potential public health risks were chosen which may arise more often in

alternative and outdoor poultry husbandry systems than in conventional indoor

husbandry systems: 1) Campylobacter in broilers; 2) avian influenza introduction in

laying hens; and 3) dioxin in eggs. The objective of this paper is to study in citizens

and poultry farmers 1) moral convictions regarding humans and chickens; 2) the

judgment of the dilemma of improving chicken welfare or reducing public health risks;

and 3) the valuation of moral arguments relevant for the judgment of three practical

cases representing the dilemma.

5

CHAPTER 5

112


To study the judgment of three cases illustrating the dilemma, moral arguments, and

moral convictions relevant for citizens and poultry farmers, a survey was carried out

by means of an online questionnaire. Three cases were selected which represent a

dilemma of choosing a system that improves chicken welfare or reduces the public

health or food safety risk for Campylobacter, avian influenza or dioxin. These cases

were selected because the public health or food safety hazard may occur more often in

alternative and outdoor husbandry systems than in conventional indoor systems. The

questionnaire was based on a multi-criteria framework containing moral convictions,

moral arguments, and the three cases describing a dilemma.

Framework

The multi-criteria framework (Figure 5.1) is based on an analysis of existing

frameworks regarding dilemmas in animal and food production, and an analysis of the

debate related to chicken welfare and public health risks (e.g. Bergstra et al., 2015;

Bruijnis et al., 2015; Cohen et al., 2009; Gremmen et al., 2018; Jensen et al., 2011;

Mepham, 2000; Michalopoulos et al., 2008). Because our study focuses on the

dilemma of choosing a system that improves chicken welfare or reduces public health

risks related to poultry farming, only convictions directly relevant for this dilemma

were considered. The main interest groups involved in the dilemma are chickens –

depending on the case, these were laying hens or broilers – farmers, consumers of

chicken products, and citizens who are at risk.

To explain the framework used, we will now give a concise overview of relevant

literature and the public debate regarding the dilemma of improving chicken welfare

or reducing public health risks. Literature review and analyses of the debate on the

dilemma mentioned indicate that four clusters of moral values may be relevant to the

study: Value of chickens, Naturalness, Fairness and Wellbeing (e.g. Beauchamp et al.,

2009; Bergstra et al., 2015; Cohen et al., 2009; Jensen et al., 2011; Mepham, 2000;

Michalopoulos et al., 2008). With regard to the dilemma presented, the interests of

humans will be balanced against those of chickens. In the context of poultry

husbandry, fundamental moral values related to humans and chickens will be

expressed by people as personal moral convictions. Judging a dilemma will be

influenced by moral convictions regarding the value of chickens. For example, chickens

TRADE-OFF

113

may have functional value, but can also have other values, such as relational value or

intrinsic value (Cohen et al., 2009; Warren, 1997). The functional value of chickens

refers to their usefulness for humans, namely producing meat and eggs. A reason to

attribute to chickens intrinsic value is acknowledging them as sentient beings who are

able to experience pain, pleasure and boredom (Heeger et al., 2001; Warren, 1997).

Balancing the interests and values related to humans against those related to chickens

is influenced by the value of chickens and how their value is related to human value,

i.e. the hierarchical position of a person with respect to animals (Cohen et al., 2009).

For this study, the convictions ‘chickens experience pain’, ‘chickens experience

pleasure and boredom’, ‘chickens have intrinsic value’, ‘chickens have functional value’

and ‘hierarchical position’ may be of relevance for the judgment and are included in

the framework (Figure 5.1).

Figure 5.1 Framework for the analyses of moral convictions and moral arguments relevant for the judgment of three cases representing a dilemma of improving chicken welfare or reducing public health risks

In discussions about how animals should be kept, naturalness is often emphasized,

especially by citizens (Bergstra et al., 2015; Boogaard et al., 2011a; Lassen et al., 2006;

Vanhonacker et al., 2008; Verbeke, 2009; Verhoog et al., 2007). Both citizens and

farmers perceive freedom of movement and possibility to perform natural behaviour

as important (Bergstra et al., 2015; Boogaard et al., 2011a; Te Velde et al., 2002), but

Chickens should not harm human

Promote chicken health and welfare

Humans are superior to chickens

Chickens have functional value

Natural life span

Natural behaviour

Natural life

Fair distribution cost higher welfare

Fair distribution cost lower risk

Consumer co-responsible risk prevention

Consumer co-responsible welfare

Treat chickens with respect to their own value

Outdoor access (laying hens)

Expres natural behaviour

No harm human by Campylobacter

Beaks hens not treated (dioxine)

Human health > chicken welfare

No harm human by diseases of hensNo harm human by dioxin in eggs

Protection hens against influenzaSystem better for chicken welfare

Prevent risk Campylobacter

Acceptable risk influenzaAcceptable risk dioxin

Longer life (broiler)

Chickens experience pain

Chickens experience pleasure / boredom

Chickens have intrinsic valueValue of chickens

Naturalness

Fairness

Wellbeing

Clusters of moral values Moral convictions Moral arguments Cases representing dilemmas

Campylobacter in broilers

Avian influenza in laying hens

Dioxin in eggs

5

CHAPTER 5

114

citizens also see a natural life and a natural lifespan as being important in animal

husbandry (Bergstra et al., 2015; Lassen et al., 2006). In the dilemma of improving

chicken welfare or reducing public health risks, naturalness may play a role in the

choice of husbandry system, because outdoor systems are in line with convictions

regarding naturalness, such as freedom to express natural behaviour and leading

natural lives. Therefore, ‘natural behaviour’ and ‘natural life’ are included in our

framework. For broilers specifically, ‘natural lifespan’ is of relevance, because broilers

used in non-conventional systems are of a slower growing genetic line and are thus

slaughtered at an older age and will be studied.

The third cluster of values we found relevant is fairness, which is also referred to as

justice. When applied to the dilemma of improving chicken welfare or reducing public

health risks, fairness may represent a fair distribution of costs for improving animal

welfare and for reducing public health risks, and a fair distribution of responsibility

for chicken welfare and risk prevention among farmers and consumers. The

corresponding convictions for this study are ‘fair distribution of costs of higher

welfare’, ‘fair distribution of costs of lower public health risks’, ‘consumers are co-

responsible for risk prevention’, and ‘consumers are co-responsible for chicken

welfare’. With regard to animals, fairness has been defined as respect for the intrinsic

values of animals (Mepham, 2000). It means that chickens have a value of their own,

independently from their instrumental value to humans, and should be treated with

respect to their own value. In the present study, fairness will refer to respect for the

intrinsic value of chickens: ‘treat chickens with respect to their own value’.

The last cluster of moral values concerns wellbeing. Wellbeing means promote health

and welfare, do not harm, and protect against harm (Beauchamp et al., 2009; Cohen et

al., 2009; Mepham, 2000). The dilemma outlined above relates to a change of

husbandry system, which may be beneficial for poultry welfare, but may also entail

higher risks to public health or food safety hazards. The general public and poultry

farmers view poultry health, public health and food safety as important issues for

poultry husbandry (Chapter 2; Van Asselt et al., 2015b). Thus, as regards the dilemma,

the convictions ‘promote chicken health and welfare’ and ‘should not harm human

health’ are relevant to the framework and are included. Related to the moral

convictions as described above and, in the framework (Figure 5.1), we formulated

statements (see Table 5.3), which were included in the questionnaire.

TRADE-OFF

115

In this study, three cases were presented to survey participants regarding the dilemma

of improving chicken welfare or reducing public health risks. In each case, certain

specific moral arguments are relevant. These moral arguments are related to the

previously described moral convictions (Figure 5.1). Because we were interested to

study the judgments in three specific cases, only relevant moral arguments for the

specific cases are included. Consequently, not for every moral conviction a moral

argument is included in the framework in Figure 5.1. Some of the moral arguments are

relevant for all cases, for example ‘human health is more important than chicken

welfare’, ‘express natural behaviour’, and ‘the system is better for chicken welfare’.

Other arguments are specific to one case, such as ‘longer life for broilers’ for the

Campylobacter case; ‘outdoor access’ for the avian influenza and dioxin case; and

‘beaks are not treated’ for the dioxin case. For each case six arguments were chosen.

Based on these arguments for each case, six statements were formulated and included

in the questionnaire (see Table 5.2).

Cases representing the dilemma

For methodological reasons, the three cases representing the dilemma were

formulated in two ways. The two cases representing a dilemma regarding

Campylobacter in broilers and dioxin in eggs describe a situation in which a broiler

farmer and a laying hen farmer switch to a husbandry system that is considered more

welfare-friendly than the old system but may imply higher food safety risks. The avian

influenza case describes a switch from an outdoor system to a less welfare-friendly

indoor system with fewer risks of avian influenza than the outdoor system. In the

questionnaire, the three cases were presented to the participants. After each case the

participants were asked to give their opinions (agree, neither agree nor disagree, or

disagree) on the choice of a poultry farmer for a husbandry system.

Campylobacter case A poultry farmer keeps his broiler chickens in a conventional indoor husbandry

system: in a barn with litter on the floor, and the broilers are slaughtered at the age of

42 days. The farmer would like to change from the conventional system to a

conventional plus (indoor) system. Compared to a conventional system, the broilers in

a conventional plus system are offered more space, enrichment (straw) and will be

slaughtered at the age of 56 days. Ten per cent of conventional broiler meat is infected

5

CHAPTER 5

116

with the intestinal bacterium Campylobacter. In the new system, the Campylobacter

contamination of broiler meat will increase to 30%, due to the longer growing period

of the broilers. In humans, contamination with Campylobacter may cause intestinal

infections. Contamination can be prevented through hygienic food handling and

thorough cooking of broiler meat.

Avian influenza case A poultry farmer keeps his laying hens in a free-range system with outdoor access. The

hens have access to an outdoor run for eight hours a day. Hens kept in this system

with outdoor access have an introduction rate of avian influenza that is 11 times higher

than for hens kept in systems without outdoor access. Therefore, the poultry farmer

decides to keep his hens permanently indoors. The avian influenza virus is transmitted

to several bird species and is usually not contagious to humans. Influenza viruses

change continuously. In future, avian influenza may infect humans and may cause

human diseases varying from eye infections to flu.

Dioxin case A laying hen farmer switches from an indoor non-cage husbandry system to an organic

system. Compared to the indoor non-cage system, hens in this organic system have

more space, access to an outdoor run for eight hours a day, have untreated beaks, and

receive organic feed. When the farmer kept his hens in the indoor system, the dioxin

levels in the eggs were well below the legal norm. In the system with outdoor access,

hens can take up dioxin from the environment and the average dioxin level in eggs has

increased, but is still within the legal norm. Dioxin is a chemical compound, which

after a prolonged uptake may cause cancer in humans. The norm is set at a level such

that the cancer risk is minimal.

Survey

A quantitative survey was done by means of an online questionnaire in March and

April 2014. We formulated the survey questions based on the moral convictions, moral

arguments and cases presented in the framework (Figure 5.1). Prior to data collection,

the questionnaire was pilot tested for clarity and comprehensibility of the questions by

representatives of the two stakeholder groups. Based on these comments, the

questionnaire was then further revised and subsequently executed. The questions

TRADE-OFF

117

addressed 1) moral convictions concerning chickens and humans; 2) the judgments of

three cases; 3) arguments of relevance for the judgment of the dilemmas; and 4) socio-

demographic characteristics of the participants. For the questions regarding the moral

convictions (Figure 5.1), we asked the participants to score to what extent they agreed

with 15 statements (Table 5.3) on a five-point Likert scale ranging from strongly

disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).

The participants were then presented first with the Campylobacter case and were

asked to give their opinions (agree, neither agree nor disagree, or disagree) on the

choice made by a poultry farmer in a case that represents a dilemma of improving

broiler welfare or increasing the risk of Campylobacter. Participants were then asked

to rate the importance of six statements regarding the moral arguments for their

judgment of the Campylobacter case on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 = very unimportant, 5 = very

important). Subsequently, the other two cases, the avian influenza and dioxin case,

were presented. Participants were again asked to make a judgment and to rate the

importance of six statements regarding moral arguments (Table 5.2).

Participants

The general public and poultry farmers were considered relevant stakeholder groups

for studying the dilemma of improving chicken welfare or reducing public health risks.

The opinions of the general public concerning livestock husbandry, most notably

channelled through NGOs, have become important (Boogaard et al., 2011b). The

general public were studied in their role as citizens, because citizens, without being

necessarily consumers, may be involved in public debates about poultry husbandry

(Harvey et al., 2013). The views of poultry farmers were regarded as relevant because

they are most directly involved in choosing and investing in poultry husbandry

systems.

Representatives of Dutch citizens and poultry farmers filled in the questionnaire.

CentERdata (www.centerdata.nl), a research institute specialized in online survey

research, invited citizens from their CentERpanel to participate in the survey. The

CentERpanel is considered to be a representative sample of the Dutch population.

CentERdata approached 3,344 CentERpanel citizens, of whom 2,373 (71.0%) started to

fill in the questionnaire, and 2,259 (67.6%) completed the questionnaire. Dutch

5

CHAPTER 5

118

poultry farmers were invited to participate in the questionnaire by a digital newsletter

of the Dutch organization of poultry farmers (NOP). We also posted several articles on

websites dealing with poultry husbandry, and a website concerned with agriculture in

general. The newsletter and websites were freely available. One hundred poultry

farmers fully completed the questionnaire. The data of CBS Statistics Netherlands

(2018, April 04) indicate that 2,046 farms kept poultry professionally in 2014.

Information about the main socio-demographic features of the respondents, citizens

and poultry farmers, are presented in Table 5.1.


1 Data from Statline (CBS Statistics Netherlands) dated 01-03-2014

Statistical analyses

Only fully completed questionnaires were included in the analyses. Data were

processed and analysed using SPSS 22.0. Two cases, the Campylobacter and dioxin

cases, described a switch to a system that benefits chicken welfare at the expense of

public health. For the avian influenza case, however, the case was formulated the

other way round for methodological reasons, thus describing a switch from a system

that benefits animal welfare to a system that benefits public health. To facilitate the

analyses of the dilemmas, for the influenza case the categories disagree and agree

were switched so that for all three cases an ‘agree’ signifies agreement with a farmer’s

choice of a husbandry system that may benefit chicken welfare, and a ‘disagree’

signifies disagreement with a farmer’s choice of a husbandry system that may benefit

chicken welfare. The Chi square test was done to analyse the association between the

judgment of the cases and the stakeholder group. Analysis of variances was used to

Citizens (n = 2259)

Poultry farmers (n = 100) CBS Statline1

Gender (%) Male 52.2 88.0 49.2

Female 47.8 12.0 50.8

Age (%) 15 - 34 years 16.6 11.0 29.3

35 - 54 years 36.8 73.0 34.2

> 55 years 46.6 16.0 36.5

Education (%) Low 26.7 28.0 30.9

Intermediate 29.3 43.0 41.0

High (Bachelor / Master) 44.0 29.0 28.1

TRADE-OFF

119

explore the association between 1) the mean importance scores for the moral

arguments and the judgment of the case; 2) the mean level of agreement with

statements regarding moral convictions and stakeholder group; and 3) the mean level

of agreement with statements regarding moral convictions and judgment of the case.

One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was done if variances were homogeneous

according to Leven’s test. If variances were not homogeneous, the Welch test was

used. If the effect of the judgment of a case on the arguments was significant, the post-

hoc Games-Howell test for multiple comparisons was done to analyse differences

between the groups that agreed, neither agreed nor disagreed, or disagreed with a

farmer’s choice of a system that may benefit chicken welfare.

RESULTS

To gain insight into the judgment of the dilemma and relevant moral arguments and

convictions, we first present the judgments of citizens and poultry farmers on the

three cases. Second, the importance of the moral arguments for the judgment of the

three cases will be shown. Next, the moral convictions of the citizens and poultry

farmers will be presented, and finally, these moral convictions will be presented in

relation to the judgments of citizens and farmers regarding the three cases.

Opinions on the cases

Citizens and poultry farmers had different opinions on the three cases representing a

dilemma of improving chicken welfare or reducing public health risks from 1)

Campylobacter in broilers; 2) avian influenza in laying hens; and 3) dioxin in eggs

(Figure 5.2). Citizens were more likely than farmers to agree with a system that

benefits chicken welfare at the expense of public health, while farmers were more

likely than citizens to disagree with a system that benefits chicken welfare for the

Campylobacter case (χ2 (2) = 11.23, p = 0.004), the avian influenza case (χ2 (2) =

75.97, p < 0.001), and the dioxin case (χ2 (2) = 179.65, p < 0.001). Of the three cases,

citizens most often agreed with a system that benefits chicken welfare when

considering the dioxin case (50%), while farmers most often agreed with a system

that benefits chicken welfare when considering the Campylobacter case (30%).

5

CHAPTER 5

120

Figure 5.2 Percentage of citizen and poultry farmer respondents who agreed, were neutral (neither agreed, nor disagreed), and disagreed with the choice of a husbandry system that benefits chicken welfare at the expense of public health for Campylobacter in broilers, avian influenza in laying hens, and dioxin in eggs

For the Campylobacter case, the difference between citizens and farmers was smaller

than for the influenza and dioxin cases. Of the three cases, citizens and farmers

disagreed most often on the avian influenza case. Notable is the high percentage of

farmers (74%) who disagreed with a system that benefits hen welfare and increases

the risk of avian influenza introduction. Of the citizens, about 40-45% neither agreed

nor disagreed with the three cases, while among poultry farmers, a comparable

neutral score was only found for the Campylobacter case.

Moral arguments

After making a judgment of the cases, the respondents scored the importance of moral

arguments for their judgment of the three cases (Table 5.2). For all three cases,

citizens and farmers who agreed with a choice of a system that favours chicken

welfare scored 1) all arguments concerning naturalness; 2) all arguments concerning

fairness; and 3) the argument concerning wellbeing ‘free range systems are better for

broiler welfare’, as more important (p < 0.05) than those who favoured a system with

fewer public health risks. Respondents who disagreed with the choice of a system with

better chicken welfare and higher public health risks scored the arguments regarding

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

disagree

neutral

agree

disagree

neutral

agree

disagree

neutral

agree

Cam

pylo

bact

erA

vian

influ

enza

Dio

xin


TRADE-OFF

121

5

CHAPTER 5

122

value of chickens – ‘human health is more important than chicken welfare ’ –, and the

argument regarding wellbeing, namely ‘not harm human’, as more important (p <

0.05) than respondents who agreed with the choice of a system favouring chicken

welfare. In citizens, a difference of more than 1.0 was found between the agree group

and the disagree group for arguments regarding naturalness ‘chickens can express

more natural behaviour’, and ‘hens should have the opportunity to go outside’ , for the

argument regarding wellbeing chicken in the Campylobacter case, and for the

argument ‘beaks of the hens are not treated’ in the dioxin case. The scores of the

farmers who agreed and disagreed differed for almost all arguments by more than 1.0.

A difference of more than 1.8 was found between the agree and disagree groups for

arguments regarding naturalness ‘chickens can express more natural behaviour’, and

‘hens should have the opportunity to go outside’ in the influenza and dioxin case, and

regarding wellbeing in the influenza case. Notable are the low scores of farmers who

disagreed with the choice of a system that benefits chicken welfare for all the

arguments regarding naturalness.

Moral convictions

Table 5.3 shows the mean scores of citizens and poultry farmers for moral convictions

relevant in the context of the dilemma of improving chicken welfare or reducing public

health risks. Citizens scored the statement ‘chickens or chicken products should not

harm human health’, which reflects the wellbeing of humans, as highest, and the

statement ‘chickens have functional value’ lowest of all statements. Poultry farmers

scored the statement ‘costs of improving chicken welfare may be charged in price of

eggs or meat’, which reflects fairness of distribution of costs, highest and they scored

‘chickens should reach their natural lifespan’ lowest of all statements. The mean

scores of citizens and farmers did not differ (p > 0.05) for the two statements

regarding chicken sentience, namely ‘chickens experience pain’, and ‘chickens

experience pleasure and boredom’, and did not differ for the statement ‘chickens or

chicken products should not harm human health’ (wellbeing). All other statements

were scored differently (p < 0.05) between citizens and poultry farmers. Citizens

scored the statements regarding the intrinsic value of chickens, and the three

statements regarding naturalness higher (p < 0.05) than farmers did. The statements

‘chickens have functional value’, ‘humans are superior to chickens’, the five statements

regarding fairness, and ‘a farmer should treat a chicken when it is ill’ were scored

TRADE-OFF

123

5

CHAPTER 5

124

higher by farmers than by citizens (p < 0.05). The biggest differences between scores

given by citizens and poultry farmers related to statements concerning the value of

chickens, namely ‘chickens have functional value’, and ‘humans are superior to

chickens’, and statements concerning naturalness.

Moral convictions relating to opinions on the cases: A comparison between

citizens and farmers

Moral convictions relating to the opinions on the cases regarding Campylobacter in

broilers, avian influenza in laying hens, and dioxin in eggs are presented in the ANNEX

I in Table 5.4, 5.5 and 5.6. For all three cases, the scores of the agree and disagree

groups in citizens and poultry farmers show the same pattern. All respondents, both

citizens and poultry farmers, who agreed with the choice of a husbandry system that

benefits chicken welfare, gave higher scores for statements regarding chicken

sentience, ‘chickens have intrinsic value’, naturalness, fairness and ‘a farmer should

treat a chicken when it is ill’, and lower scores for the statements ‘chickens have

functional value’ and ‘humans are superior to chickens’ than respondents who

disagreed.

DISCUSSION

Society is increasingly concerned about poultry husbandry in general and chicken

welfare in particular. To address these concerns, poultry husbandry systems have been

adapted and the number of farms offering outdoor access to chickens has been

growing. With these developments, new concerns have come to the fore about

potential public health and food safety risks associated with keeping chickens in

alternative and outdoor husbandry systems. As a result, a dilemma of choosing a

system that improves chicken welfare or reduces public health and food safety risks

has arisen. The question is how to address such dilemmas. Insight into stakeholders’

judgments of these dilemmas and their arguments and underlying moral convictions,

may provide input for developing or adapting husbandry systems in such way that

they can count on support from society. Therefore, the objective of this study was to 1)

to gain insight into views of citizens as compared to poultry farmers on three cases

representing a dilemma of improving chicken welfare or reducing public health risks;

TRADE-OFF

125

2) the valuation of moral arguments relevant for the dilemma; and 3) the underlying

moral convictions. To this end, a quantitative survey by means of an online

questionnaire was conducted among Dutch citizens and poultry farmers. The citizens’

sample was considered representative for Dutch citizens. It should be noted that due

to the methods of invitation, the selection of poultry farmers might have been biased,

for example towards more knowledgeable farmers.

Judgments of the cases and moral arguments

Citizens and poultry farmers judged three cases dealing with the choice of farmer for a

husbandry system that benefits chickens or a system that reduces public health of food

safety risks for Campylobacter, avian influenza, or dioxin in eggs. For all three cases,

citizens agreed with the choice of a husbandry system that benefits chicken welfare at

the expense of public health more often than did farmers. These results are in line

with other studies that describe that, in general, citizens prefer husbandry systems

with outdoor access (Chapter 2; Van Asselt et al., 2015b; Vanhonacker et al., 2016),

while farmers often have negative attitudes towards outdoor systems (Chapter 2;

Gocsik et al., 2016; Stadig et al., 2016; Van Asselt et al., 2015b). Of the three cases,

farmers most often agreed with the Campylobacter case (30%), which represented a

switch from a conventional indoor to a conventional plus system. Compared to the

conventional system, the conventional plus system offers broilers more space and

enrichment, and broilers are slaughtered at an older age. Nevertheless, the

conventional plus system is also an indoor system. The relatively strong agreement of

farmers with the Campylobacter case may also be explained by the farmers’ preference

for indoor systems (Chapter 2; Gocsik et al., 2016; Stadig et al., 2016; Van Asselt et al.,

2015b).

For the Campylobacter and dioxin case, more citizens agreed than disagreed with a

system that benefits chicken welfare at the expense of public health, while for the

avian influenza case more citizens disagreed than agreed with a system that benefits

chicken welfare at the expense of public health. The reason that citizens choose not to

favour the outdoor system for the avian influenza case might be that in contrast to the

other two cases avian influenza affects also hen health negatively and in case of an

avian influenza outbreak chickens have to be culled. Citizens showed a higher

agreement on the dioxin case than on the influenza and Campylobacter case. The

5

CHAPTER 5

126

welfare improvement from an indoor non-cage to an organic system in the dioxin case

is larger than in the other two cases. For a considerable group of citizens, this welfare

improvement might be sufficient to outweigh the health risks for human, or they

perceive the human health risks as small because eggs are controlled on dioxin levels.

A considerable group of respondents, especially citizens, neither disagreed nor agreed

with a system that benefits chicken welfare. The scores of these “neutral” respondents

for the moral arguments were in between the scores of the disagree and agree groups.

This neutral judgment might suggest that these respondents required more

information to judge the case, or had less strong opinions than the disagree and agree

groups, or viewed several arguments equally important and could not make a trade-

off.

It is interesting to note that citizens and poultry farmers who made the same

judgments of the cases use the same moral arguments. Those who agreed with a

system that benefits chicken welfare scored the moral arguments regarding

naturalness, fairness, and wellbeing of chickens higher, and the arguments ‘humans are

superior to chickens’, ‘not harm human’, and ‘not harm chicken’ lower than the

respondents who disagreed. The arguments regarding naturalness ‘express natural

behaviour’ and ‘opportunity to go outside’ were scored considerably different by the

agree and disagree respondents of the two stakeholder groups. This difference

suggests that the judgment of the dilemma of improving chicken welfare or reducing

public health risks is predominantly influenced by how important one views

naturalness in relation to chickens and chicken welfare.

Moral convictions

In this study, citizens and poultry farmers agreed with most moral convictions

presented. Citizens and farmers agreed on the strength of the convictions regarding

not harm human and sentience of chicken, which was also found by Bergstra et al.

(2015) in the context of pig husbandry. This agreement on sentience chickens

experience pain, and pleasure and boredom may still lead to diverging views

regarding a dilemma in a practical case, because other convictions, such as the

conviction regarding naturalness, are balanced against it. In a practical case, attribute

sentience to chickens may imply for a citizen respect for a natural life and for a farmer

providing good care to his chickens.

TRADE-OFF

127

Most moral convictions were not shared by citizens and farmers. Citizens recognized

more often than farmers the importance of the intrinsic value of animals (Bergstra et

al., 2015). Farmers valued the convictions regarding ‘humans are superior to chickens’,

and ‘chickens have functional value’ higher than citizens. This suggests that for them,

the value of chickens is mainly based on their usefulness to people. Also, for the

convictions regarding naturalness, a big difference was found between citizens and

farmers. Citizens perceived convictions regarding naturalness, such as ‘express natural

behaviour’ and ‘natural life’, as more important than did farmers. This is in line with

studies on stakeholders’ perceptions of animal welfare, which show that citizens view

animal welfare predominantly in terms of leading natural lives and professionals as

biological functioning and affective states of the animal (Bergstra et al., 2015; Fraser

et al., 1997; Te Velde et al., 2002; Vanhonacker et al., 2008).

The scores for the moral convictions regarding a fair distribution of responsibility and

costs showed some interesting results. Although citizens and poultry farmers agreed

that the costs of improving chicken welfare and reducing public health risks may be

charged in the price of eggs or meat, poultry farmers agreed with these statements

more strongly than citizens did. Farmers will argue that they are responsible for

producing eggs and chicken meat in accordance with minimal requirements for

chicken welfare and risks for public health and food safety as laid down in legislation.

When society calls for chicken welfare or public health and food safety above this

statutory level, farmers might argue that they are not responsible to pay for these

improvements. On the other hand, citizens might argue that the requirements as set in

legislation are minimal requirements and farmers are responsible for health and

welfare of their chickens, and therefore farmers should pay for the improvements.

In the questionnaire, the moral convictions regarding humans and chickens were

asked independently from the cases. Because the moral arguments were associated

with the judgments of the cases, and the moral arguments used in the cases were

based on the moral convictions, it was expected that moral convictions would also be

associated with the judgments of the cases. Indeed, in both citizens and poultry

farmers the moral convictions were associated with the judgments, and especially the

convictions regarding naturalness, and the value of chickens seemed relevant for the

judgments. The people who disagreed with a judgment in favour of chicken welfare a

higher percentage of farmers than citizens scored the moral convictions ‘humans are

5

CHAPTER 5

128

superior to chickens’, and ‘chickens have functional value’ higher, and the convictions

regarding sentience chickens and intrinsic value of chicken lower than those who

agreed. These results confirm that the value of chickens being sentient and having

intrinsic value or having functional value (Cohen et al., 2012) and naturalness

(Bergstra et al., 2015), in terms of expressing natural behaviour, are relevant

convictions for the way in which the interests of chickens are weighed against the

interests of humans.

The convictions regarding sentience, the value of chickens and naturalness, are all

related to ethical views on animal welfare. Sentience, the capacity to feel pain and

emotions, is, according to several ethical theories, a reason to respect the species

specific needs and interests of animals (e.g. Appleby et al., 2002; Bentham, 1789;

Singer, 1995) and may be a reason to attribute to these animals intrinsic value (Heeger

et al., 2001). Respect for the interests of animals may imply respect for the animal

living its life according to its nature or telos (Rollin, 1981). This view was confirmed in

citizens and farmers who believed that chickens have a right to a natural life. The

respect for telos is contained in the concept of animal welfare that considers that good

welfare means leading a natural life (Fraser, 2003; Fraser et al., 1997). Although

‘chicken or chicken products should not harm humans’ was an important moral

conviction for both citizens and farmers, a proportion of the citizens and farmers

judged the dilemma in favour of chicken welfare. For them, convictions regarding the

interests of chickens may be strong enough to outweigh those regarding human health,

and to cause them to judge the dilemma in favour of chicken welfare. People who view

humans to be superior to chickens – in this study more poultry farmers than citizens –

may value chickens predominantly for their functional value. They may perceive

animal welfare in terms of biological functioning – health, growth and production rate

– and view naturalness less important for chickens and their welfare. They will

balance the values related to the interests of chickens against other values, such as

‘not harm human’. As a result, these people may judge the cases in favour of human

health.

Context

The remaining question is: Why do different interest groups, such as citizens and

farmers, value some moral convictions differently? The differences between them

TRADE-OFF

129

might be explained by their context: whether or not someone is involved in poultry

husbandry, which has been explained by the ‘three-layered concept of moral

convictions’ by Cohen et al. (2010). Fundamental moral values, such as respect for

autonomy, justice and wellbeing, are part of public morality (Beauchamp et al., 2009;

Mepham, 2000). Being a farmer or being a member of the general public, however,

influences the valuation of moral convictions, which are based on those fundamental

moral values regarding either humans or animals. Moreover, the practical context of

people, and thus also their interests, will influence the balancing of moral convictions.

It has been shown that farmers’ decisions regarding husbandry systems are influenced

by their farm characteristics and the possibility of converting to another e.g. outdoor

system, risks of disease spread, and the economic consequences of a disease

outbreak (Gocsik et al., 2015; Stadig et al., 2016). To elaborate on this, the public

health risks of an avian influenza outbreak are small, because only a minority of avian

influenza outbreaks are potentially a disease risk for humans. If avian influenza is

diagnosed on a farm, chickens will be culled immediately, which implies that the

human health risks is small. An influenza outbreak, however, has a high impact on the

affected farm, because chickens will be culled, and an outbreak also affects other

farms because animal transportation is halted and export restrictions imposed (Backer

et al., 2011). This high impact of avian influenza outbreaks on farmers’ wellbeing and

the viability of the farm will influence farmers’ moral convictions and arguments

regarding naturalness and outdoor systems. Farmers might therefore have valued the

intrinsic value of chickens lower and the functional value of chickens higher than did

citizens. Another example is a farmer’s practical or economically inability to convert to

an outdoor system may influence his opinion on the importance of naturalness for

chickens.

Citizens, however, value chickens for their intrinsic value and do not take economic

consequences or farm characteristics into consideration when they value moral

convictions regarding chickens. Nowadays, only a small number of people are involved

in livestock farming and farms are often “closed” systems, so that citizens are not

always aware of the limitations that farmers have to deal with. Other examples of the

context dependency of citizens’ views are food or livestock-related incidents. In the

period March to April 2014, when this research was done, no animal disease outbreaks

or food incidents occurred in the Netherlands. Citizens may have perceived the public

health risks as presented in the cases in this study as general risks and not as personal

5

CHAPTER 5

130

risks. In situations of animal disease outbreaks, such as avian influenza, or food

incidents, such as the dioxin affair, people may feel anxious and uncertain about the

risks, and may make different judgments and use different arguments from those we

found in this study (Bults et al., 2011).

Framework

The framework used in this study to structure convictions and arguments relevant to

the dilemma presented was based on existing multi-criteria frameworks and the

debate on the dilemma. Although the framework might not be complete – for example,

we did not include an argument for each moral conviction – the framework was useful

to analyse moral convictions and arguments involved in a complex dilemma of

improving animal welfare or public health risks. Based on the results, we can conclude

that moral convictions related to the moral values value of chicken and naturalness are

important for judging the dilemma of improving chicken welfare or reducing public

health risks and should be considered in ethical frameworks when studying dilemmas

in animal husbandry.


Judgments by citizens and poultry farmers regarding the dilemma are related to their

valuation of moral arguments and moral convictions, and are context-dependent.

People, more citizens than farmers, who choose a husbandry system that benefits

chicken welfare at the expense of public health value convictions related to the

intrinsic value of chickens, sentience, and naturalness expressing natural behaviour,

natural lifespan and natural life as more important than people who choose a system

in favour of public health. Poultry farmers focus on the functional value of chickens

and view a fair distribution of cost for welfare improvement and risks prevention

important. Moreover, we argued that the judgments and moral convictions are

context-dependent and this may explain the differences found between citizens and

poultry farmers. To comply with societal concerns on poultry husbandry, moral

convictions and arguments of both stakeholder groups should be considered. With

that, successful innovations in poultry husbandry can be achieved.

TRADE-OFF

131

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS



REFERENCES

Appleby, M. C., & Sandoe, P. T. (2002). Philosophical Debate on the Nature of Well-being: Implications for Animal Welfare. Animal Welfare, 11(3), 283-294.

Backer, J., Bergevoet, R., Fischer, E., Nodelijk, G., Bosman, K., Saatkamp, H., & Roermund, H. v. (2011). Control of highly pathogenic avian influenza: epidemiological and economic aspects. Retrieved from Den Haag: http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/fulltext/173727


Bentham, J. (1789). Duty to minimize suffering. In A. Linzey & P. A. B. Clarke (Eds.), Political Theory and Animal Rights (pp. 135-137). London: Pluto.


Boogaard, B. K., Boekhorst, L. J. S., Oosting, S. J., & Sørensen, J. T. (2011a). Socio-cultural sustainability of pig production: Citizen perceptions in the Netherlands and Denmark. Livestock Science, 140(1-3), 189-200. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2011.03.028

Boogaard, B. K., Oosting, S. J., Bock, B. B., & Wiskerke, J. S. C. (2011b). The sociocultural sustainability of livestock farming: An inquiry into social perceptions of dairy farming. Animal, 5(9), 1458-1466. doi:10.1017/S1751731111000371


Bruijnis, M. R. N., Blok, V., Stassen, E. N., & Gremmen, H. G. J. (2015). Moral “Lock-In” in Responsible Innovation: The Ethical and Social Aspects of Killing Day-Old Chicks and Its Alternatives. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 28(5), 939-960. doi:10.1007/s10806-015-9566-7

Bults, M., Beaujean, D. J., de Zwart, O., Kok, G., van Empelen, P., van Steenbergen, J. E., . . . Voeten, H. A. (2011). Perceived risk, anxiety, and behavioural responses of the general public during the early phase of the Influenza A (H1N1) pandemic in the Netherlands: results of three consecutive online surveys. BMC Public Health, 11, 2. doi:doi:10.1186/1471-2458-11-2

CBS Statistics Netherlands. Landbouw; gewassen, dieren en grondgebruik naar regio. Retrieved 04-04-2018 https://opendata.cbs.nl/statline/#/CBS/nl/dataset/80780ned/table?dl=1525B

Childress, J. F., Faden, R. R., Gaare, R. D., Gostin, L. O., Kahn, J., Bonnie, R. J., . . . Nieburg, P. (2002). Public health ethics: Mapping the terrain. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, 30(2), 170-178.



5

CHAPTER 5

132


Cohen, N. E., & Stassen, E. N. (2016). Public moral convictions about animals in the Netherlands: culling healthy animals as a moral problem. In F. L. B. Meijboom & E. N. Stassen (Eds.), The end of animal life: a start for ethical debate. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic publishers.






Gocsik, É., van der Lans, I. A., Lansink, A. G. J. M. O., & Saatkamp, H. W. (2016). Elicitation of preferences of Dutch broiler and pig farmers to support decision making on animal welfare. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 76, 75-86. doi:10.1016/j.njas.2015.11.006



Gremmen, B., Bruijnis, M. R. N., Blok, V., & Stassen, E. N. (2018). A Public Survey on Handling Male Chicks in the Dutch Egg Sector. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10806-018-9712-0


Heeger, R., & Brom, F. W. A. (2001). Intrinsic Value and Direct Duties: From Animal Ethics towards Environmental Ethics? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 14(2), 241-252. doi:10.1023/a:1011319921159

Jensen, K. K., Forsberg, E., Gamborg, C., Millar, K., & Sandøe, P. (2011). Facilitating Ethical Reflection Among Scientists Using the Ethical Matrix. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(3), 425-445. doi:10.1007/s11948-010-9218-2


Knight, S., Vrij, A., Bard, K., & Brandon, D. (2009). Science versus human welfare? Understanding attitudes toward animal use. Journal of Social Issues, 65(3), 463-483.


Lassen, J., Sandøe, P., & Forkman, B. (2006). Happy pigs are dirty! - conflicting perspectives on animal welfare. Livestock Science, 103(3), 221-230. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2006.05.008


Mepham, B. (2000). A framework for the ethical analysis of novel foods: The ethical matrix. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 12(2), 165-176.

TRADE-OFF

133

Michalopoulos, T., Korthals, M., & Hogeveen, H. (2008). Trading "ethical preferences" in the market: Outline of a politically liberal framework for the ethical characterization of foods. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 21(1), 3-27.

Rollin, B. E. (1981). Animal rights and human morality: Prometheus Books. Rollin, B. E. (2004). Annual Meeting Keynote Address: Animal agriculture and emerging social

ethics for animals. Journal of Animal Science, 82(3), 955-964. Rollin, B. E. (2007). Cultural variation, animal welfare and telos. Animal Welfare, 16(SUPPL.),

129-133. Schoeters, G., & Hoogenboom, R. (2006). Contamination of free-range chicken eggs with dioxins

and dioxin-like polychlorinated biphenyls. Molecular Nutrition & Food Research, 50(10), 908-914. doi:10.1002/mnfr.200500201

Singer, P. (1995). Animal liberation (Second ed.). London: Random House. Sommer, H. M., Heuer, O. E., Sørensen, A. I. V., & Madsen, M. (2013). Analysis of factors

important for the occurrence of Campylobacter in Danish broiler flocks. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 111(1-2), 100-111. doi:10.1016/j.prevetmed.2013.04.004

Stadig, L. M., Ampe, B. A., Van Gansbeke, S., Van Den Bogaert, T., D'Haenens, E., Heerkens, J. L. T., & Tuyttens, F. A. M. (2016). Survey of egg farmers regarding the ban on conventional cages in the EU and their opinion of alternative layer housing systems in Flanders, Belgium. Poultry Science, 95(3), 715-725. doi:10.3382/ps/pev334



Van Asselt, M., Ekkel, E. D., Kemp, B., & Stassen, E. N. (2015a). Best broiler husbandry system and perceived importance of production aspects by Dutch citizens, poultry farmers and veterinarians. Paper presented at the 12th EurSafe Conference. Know your food: Food ethics and innovation, Cluj-Napoca, Roemenia. http://edepot.wur.nl/344161

Van Asselt, M., Ekkel, E. D., Kemp, B., & Stassen, E. N. (2015b). Best broiler husbandry system and perceived importance of production aspects by Dutch citizens, poultry farmers and veterinarians. In D. E. Dumitras, I. M. Jitea, & S. Aerts (Eds.), Know your food. Food ethics and innovation. (pp. 138-143). Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers Books.

Van Asselt, M., Ekkel, E. D., Kemp, B., & Stassen, E. N. (2017, 5-8 september). Citizens perceive broiler welfare differently from poultry farmers and poultry veterinarians. Paper presented at the 7th International Conference on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group level, Ede, the Netherlands.

Van Asselt, M., Poortvliet, P. M., Ekkel, E. D., Kemp, B., & Stassen, E. N. (2018). Risk perceptions of public health and food safety hazards in poultry husbandry by citizens, poultry farmers and poultry veterinarians. Poultry Science, 97(2), 607-619. doi:10.3382/ps/pex325



Verbeke, W. (2009). Stakeholder, citizen and consumer interests in farm animal welfare. Animal Welfare, 18(4), 325-333.

Verhoog, H., Lammerts Van Bueren, E. T., Matze, M., & Baars, T. (2007). The value of 'naturalness' in organic agriculture. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 54(4), 333-345. doi:10.1016/S1573-5214(07)80007-8

Warren, M. A. (1997). Moral status: Obligations to persons and other living things: Oxford University Press, USA.

5

CHAPTER 5

134

ANNEX I: Opinions on the cases in relation to moral convictions

TRADE-OFF

135

5

CHAPTER 5

136

Mariska va

Views on laying hen husbandry: A farm visit with citizens

6 Submitted

van Asselt










the Netherlands; 3 Department of Applied Research,



Almere, the Netherlands.

CHAPTER 6

140

ABSTRACT

The general public has expressed concerns regarding animal welfare and public health

in relation to livestock husbandry. These concerns are predominantly related to

naturalness, namely the animals’ ability to lead natural lives and a natural

environment for keeping livestock. It is not clear what citizens consider to be natural

and what their views are on an innovative husbandry system, which takes account of

these concerns about naturalness and public health. In order to achieve societal

support for laying hen husbandry, the opinions of citizens should be considered.

Therefore, during a farm visit we studied citizens’ views on an innovative laying hen

husbandry system with a large covered free-range area, and related aspects such as

hen welfare, hen health and public health risks. Two groups of nine participants filled

out a questionnaire, partly before and partly while seeing the hen husbandry system.

Results showed that participants were predominantly positive regarding the systems

in general, and regarding hen health, hen welfare and public health risks. However,

the participants expressed concerns about the space for hens to move around and

perform natural behaviour. This confirms that citizens focus on the welfare concept

“leading natural lives”. The participants’ views on naturalness could be described as “a

natural environment with space to move around and express natural behaviour”.

Based on the opinions of participants during the farm visit, it was concluded that the

husbandry system with a large covered veranda was an acceptable husbandry system,

which takes account of concerns regarding animal welfare and public health.

Suggestions have been made to improve hen husbandry systems in accordance with

citizens’ concerns.

Key words: animal welfare, farm visit, laying hen husbandry system, naturalness,

public perceptions

FARM VISIT

141

INTRODUCTION

In the public debate about livestock production, the general public has expressed

concerns regarding issues such as intensive animal husbandry systems, megafarms,

animal welfare, and public health (e.g. Bergstra et al., 2017; Boogaard et al., 2008;

Hansen et al., 2003; Harper et al., 2001; Kraaij-Dirkzwager et al., 2017). The concerns

about livestock husbandry predominantly focus on animal welfare and the animals’

ability to lead natural lives (Evans et al., 2008; Fraser, 2008; Fraser et al., 1997; Te

Velde et al., 2002). Citizens view a natural way of keeping laying hens, such as in free-

range and organic systems, as the preferred way of keeping chickens (Chapter 2, Van

Asselt et al., 2015). They perceive chicken welfare in outdoor husbandry systems as

better than in indoor systems (Chapter 3, Van Asselt et al., 2017). In addition, citizens

perceive public health and food safety risks in outdoor systems as lower than in indoor

systems and perceive food products produced in more animal-friendly systems as

healthier (Aertsens et al., 2009; Eurobarometer, 2007; Harper et al., 2002; Van Asselt

et al., 2018). Moreover, naturalness is often referred to in the public debate about

good livestock husbandry (Miele, 2017).

It is not entirely clear what constitutes leading natural lives and a natural

environment for livestock husbandry, hereinafter referred to as “naturalness”

(Bergstra et al., 2015; Miele, 2017; Ventura et al., 2014). The general public associates

naturalness in relation to animal welfare with possibilities to express natural

behaviour (Bergstra et al., 2015; Lassen et al., 2006; Te Velde et al., 2002;

Vanhonacker et al., 2008), freedom of movement (Bergstra et al., 2015; Lassen et al.,

2006), outdoor access (Bergstra et al., 2015; Boogaard et al., 2008; Lassen et al.,

2006), and social contact between animals (Bergstra et al., 2015). Furthermore, it

seems that the general public also refers to naturalness as an indicator for good

livestock husbandry, good animal health, and consequently low public health and food

safety risks. If we understand better how citizens interpret naturalness, it will be

possible to incorporate this interpretation of naturalness into livestock husbandry

systems (Bergstra et al., 2015). Some farmers have tried to take into account societal

concerns regarding hen welfare, naturalness and public health, and have invested in

innovative husbandry systems, such as Roundel (Groot Koerkamp et al., 2008;

Spoelstra et al., 2013), or the more recently developed free-range systems with a large

covered free-range area.

6

CHAPTER 6

142

These innovative systems try to take into account societal concerns as well as other

issues such as environmental impact and economic viability of the farm. Efforts of

farmers to address public concerns have led to innovations, but the question is how

does the general public view such system. Nowadays, citizens have incomplete insight

into the real-life conditions on a farm (Boogaard et al., 2006). Farm visits by citizens

to an innovative laying hen farm that considers aspects of public concern such as hen

welfare, naturalness and public health risks, provide an opportunity to study citizens’

views on such systems in a real-life situation. Therefore, the first objective of this

paper is to gain insight into citizens’ views on hen health, hen welfare, public health

risks, and naturalness. The second objective is to gain insight into how citizens view

the influence of naturalness on hen health, welfare and public health risks, and the

third is to find out their opinions on an innovative hen husbandry system in general,

and in relation to hen health, hen welfare, public health risks, and naturalness.


Citizens’ views were studied by having the participating citizens fill out a

questionnaire during a visit to an innovative laying hen farm. The farm has been

awarded the Better Life Mark (Beter Leven Keurmerk) with three stars. The Better Life

Mark was introduced by the Dutch Society for the Protection of Animals to rate the

welfare-friendliness of animal products originating from various husbandry systems.

Three stars indicates the highest level of animal welfare and is assigned to products

from organic farms and non-organic products produced in accordance with welfare

standards comparable with those of organic products. The barn visited consists of four

separate units, each with around 6,000 Lohmann Brown-Lite hens per unit, making a

total of 23,700 hens at a maximum of 6.7 hens per m2. The hens’ beaks were not

trimmed. On the day of the farm visit, the age of the hens was 24 weeks.

The barn visited accommodates two rows of multi-tiered aviaries, and on either side of

the aviary area there is a free-range area. These free-range areas are seven metres

wide and are accessible along the entire length of the aviary area during daylight

hours. The free-range area is covered with transparent roof plates, which let in

daylight. The sides of the barn consist of 0.5 metres of transparent plastic plates at the

bottom and above that a transparent curtain. When the outside temperature is warm

FARM VISIT

143

enough, both the roof cover plates and the side curtains open automatically. When

opened, the free-range area is only separated from the outside by bird netting. On the

day of the farm visit, the roof and curtains were closed, because the outside

temperature was too low. The free-range area is enriched with bales of chopped

Lucerne, containers with bamboo, and hiding places for the hens. The floor bedding in

the aviary area consists of sand and in the free-range area of sand and some straw.

Twice a day, the farmer scatters grain in the free-range area.

Farm visit

The farm visit took place with two groups of nine non-farmer citizens on 10 February

2018. The farm is situated in the centre of the Netherlands. Participants were selected

and invited by CentERdata (www.centerdata.nl), a research institute specialized in

online surveys, by means of the CentERpanel. CentERdata invited 467 people from the

CentERpanel, who live in the eastern central area of the Netherlands, to participate in

the farm visit. Out of this group, 76% (n = 358) responded whether or not they wished

to participate and of these, 18.4% (n = 66) were interested in participating in the farm

visit on the selected date. Of these 66 citizens, CentERdata selected 18 participants

based on a normal distribution of the Dutch population with respect to gender, age,

educational level, and urbanization level of current residence. Participants were

offered financial compensation of 50 euros to ensure that not only people with an

interest in (poultry) farming would participate. The socio-demographic characteristics

of the participants are presented in Table 6.1.

Table 6.1 Socio-demographic characteristics of the participants (n = 18)

count % CBS1 %

Gender Male 10 55.6 49.2 Female 8 44.4 50.8 Age 25 - 34 years 2 11.1 29.3 35 - 54 years 5 27.8 34.2 > 55 years 11 61.1 36.5 Education Low 4 22.2 30.9 Intermediate 4 22.2 41.0 High (BSc / MSc) 10 55.6 28.1

1 Data of CBS Statistics Netherlands dated 01-03-2014

6

CHAPTER 6

144

Participants in the farm visit were received in the visitors’ room of the farm. From this

room, participants have a good view of the hens in the aviary system and in the free-

range area. The questionnaire consisted of three parts. For the first part of the

questionnaire, the view of the hens was blocked by blinds. The farm visit started with

a short introduction by the researcher to explain the farm visit and the questionnaire.

While the participants were filling in the questionnaire, they did not receive answers

to any questions.

After part A of the questionnaire had been filled in, the blinds were removed so that

the participants could view the hens in both the aviary areas and the free-range area.

Then the following information was given: 1) these hens are kept for the production of

consumption eggs; 2) in the aviary area, feed and water is supplied, hens lay their

eggs in nests and can sit on perches; a covered range is situated on either side of the

barn; 3) the curtains and roof plates of the covered range are opened in good weather;

4) 23,700 hens are kept in four compartments; 5) the hens are 24 weeks of age, have

been on this farm since the age of 17.5 weeks, and started to lay eggs about 4 weeks

ago. Participants then completed parts B and C of the questionnaire. During this part

of the research, the farmer scattered grain in the free-range area.

Questionnaire

The on-farm questionnaire was divided into three parts: A) questions before viewing

the hens, B) questions while viewing the hens and C) questions on the participants’

background. The questionnaire included closed and open questions. The closed

questions could be answered on 5-point Likert scales. For some of the open questions,

the participants were asked to give answers listing multiple aspects, up to a maximum

of five. We chose to ask for a maximum of five aspects in order to stimulate

participants to put down only those aspects that they found most important. The

complete questionnaire can be found in Appendix I.

Part A contained questions on the following subjects:

- Views on the needs of hens for good welfare

- Concerns about hen welfare and about public health risks

- Views on naturalness in three ways:

o As a conceptual approach: what is a natural way of keeping animals?

FARM VISIT

145

o As consequences for a hen husbandry system

o As consequences for hens

- Influence of a natural way of keeping hens on hen health, hen welfare, and

public health risks

Part B included questions regarding views on the farm for the following subjects:

- Views on the husbandry system in general

- Views on hen health, hen welfare, and public health risks in the systems

- Views on naturalness of the system

- Naturalness of aspects in the systems,

- What do you miss on the farm?

Part C consisted of questions on socio-demographic characteristics of the participants,

such as gender, age and educational level.

Analyses

For the closed questions, totals per Likert scale category were counted and presented

in tables or in the text. For open questions, content analysis was done to identify

concerns and perceptions regarding hen health and welfare, public health,

naturalness, and the husbandry system. First, all items mentioned by the participants

were transcribed. Second, items were analysed in order to note (sub)themes, and

subsequently organized by subthemes and main themes. The categorization into

subthemes and themes was discussed with researchers on animal welfare, health and

epidemiology. The items were then definitively coded in main themes. If participants

mentioned more than one item per main theme, then these items were considered as

one item for that main theme. In the results section, we will present the number of

items per main theme and refer to these main themes as “aspects”. The total sum of

the items per main theme – aspects – is presented in tables or in the text in

parentheses behind the specific aspects. Some responses of the participants are quoted

in the results section to illustrate certain aspects.

6

CHAPTER 6

146

RESULTS

Questionnaire Part A

This part of the questionnaire contained questions on the participants’ current views

on hen welfare, hen health, public health risks, and naturalness, and were answered

before exposure to the farm visit.

Views and concerns on hen welfare For the open question “What does a hen need for good welfare?”, the participants

mentioned different aspects of animal welfare (Table 6.2). All respondents mentioned

aspects regarding good feed and water, and most of them mentioned space to move

around. To a lesser extent, natural and social behaviour, and good climate and daylight

were aspects of concern.

Table 6.2 Aspects needed for good hen welfare according to the participants (n = 18) and reasons for welfare concern according to the “concerned” participants (n = 10)

Needs for good welfare Reasons for welfare concerns

Good feed & water 18 3 Space to move around 14 9 Natural & social behaviour 9 3 Climate & daylight 9 1 Good care 5 1 Outdoor access 4 1 Restfulness 4 1 Animal health & hygiene 3 4 Good housing 3 2 Public health risks 0 3

As a response to the open question “Are you concerned about hen welfare”, 10

participants (56%) answered that they were concerned about hen welfare, 6

participants (33%) were not concerned about hen welfare, and 2 participants (11%)

answered “I do not know”. The concerned participants mentioned as reasons for their

concern predominantly aspects regarding space to move around (Table 6.2). Of the six

unconcerned participants, four indicated that they were not concerned because they

have confidence in requirements for and inspections of hen welfare as laid down in

legislation. Of the two participants who answered “I do not know”, one did not give

any explanation, and the other participant, explained: “In the media, different

FARM VISIT

147

messages are presented about the situation of hens. What one party describes as

harmful for hens is not a problem for hens according to another party.”

Concerns about public health risks The open question “Are you concerned about becoming ill from chickens or chicken

products?” was answered with “yes” by seven out of the 18 participants (39%), while

11 respondents (61%) answered “no”. Participants who were concerned (n = 7)

mentioned as reasons for their concern: use of antibiotics and other treatments (4);

too many hens together (3); chicken feed as source of public health risks (2);

Salmonella spp. (1); less trust after Fipronil affair (1); freshness of meat and eggs; and

fast growth (1). Unconcerned participants (n = 11) reported the following reasons for

not being concerned: trust in inspections and legislation (7); responsibility of

consumer to prepare chicken products properly (2); one participant answered: “the

media paid too much attention to the Fipronil affair, even though there was no public

health risk”, and one participant did not give a reason for not being concerned.

Views on naturalness Three open questions regarding naturalness were asked. The responses to the first

question regarding naturalness, “What is a natural way of keeping animals?” primarily

mentioned: sufficient space to move around, opportunities to express natural and

social behaviour, good housing, climate and daylight, and outdoor access (Table 6.3).

Six participants mentioned a natural environment, but did not explain what a natural

environment is. There were four references by participants to feed: good feed (1),

sustainable feed (1), and natural way of feeding (2). It is interesting to note that four

participants referred to respect for the intrinsic value of chickens.

The second question regarding naturalness, “What should natural housing for hens

look like?”, was predominantly answered with references to space to move around

(Table 6.3). To a lesser extent, participants mentioned outdoor access and a natural

environment, such as natural bedding material (3). It is interesting that three

participants mentioned cleanliness.

6

CHAPTER 6

148

Table 6.3 Views of the participants on naturalness: a natural way of keeping animals, natural housing for hens and natural hens

Natural way of keeping animals

Natural housing for hens

Natural hen

Space to move around 11 15 0 Natural & social behaviour 7 5 7 Good housing, climate & daylight 7 5 0 Outdoor access 6 7 0 Natural environment 6 6 0 Good feeding 4 4 2 Respect intrinsic value 4 0 2 Good care 2 0 0 Clean 0 3 0 Good health 0 0 12

For the third question regarding naturalness “How can you see from a hen that it is

being kept in a natural way?”, participants predominantly referred to aspects

regarding good health (Table 6.3). Items categorized under good health were for

example: alert hen, good feather condition, no injuries, or no lameness. Participants (n

= 7) also often mentioned aspects of natural & social behaviour. One participant

referred specifically to abnormal behaviour. Two participants answered “no beak

trimming”, which was categorized under respect for intrinsic value. Two participants

referred to good feeding by answering “no emaciation”.

Influence of naturalness on animal health, welfare and public health risks Participants were asked to score the influence of naturalness on 1) hen health, 2) hen

welfare, and 3) public health risks, and they were asked to explain their answers. One

participant did not fill in the first question. In answer to the first closed question

“What is the influence on hen health of a natural way of keeping hens?”, 15 out of 17

participants indicated that naturalness leads to better hen health (Table 6.4a). These

participants used diverse arguments to explain why naturalness leads to better hen

health, such as: less stress (5), better hen health (4), good feed (2), more space (2),

and less use of antibiotics. Two respondents answered that this also applies to

humans. One participant thought that naturalness has a negative influence on hen

health, because “outside hygiene is not optimal and therefore more chance of

diseases”. The participant who scored neutral, answered that “One does not know

what the hens eat” and “if hygiene is in order, it will be okay”. Some participants

scored the influence of naturalness on hen health as positive, but mentioned both

FARM VISIT

149

positive and negative effects of naturalness on hen health. For example, one

participant explained: “they feel better” and “you cannot keep an eye on them and

therefore less insight into diseases”. Another participant explained: “less medicine and

thus more chance of disease”, as well as “less medicine and therefore better resistance

against diseases”.

Table 6.4 Influence of naturalness on a) hen health, b) hen welfare and c) public health on 5-point Likert scales according to the participants

a) Influence of naturalness on hen health (n = 17)

Less good health Better health

0 1 1 4 11

b) Influence of naturalness on hen welfare (n = 18)

Less good welfare Better welfare

0 0 2 5 11

c) Influence of naturalness on public health risks (n = 17)

Less risks More risks

2 2 10 1 2

With regard to the second question on the influence of naturalness, “What is the

influence on hen welfare of a natural way of keeping animals?”, almost all participants

thought that naturalness has a positive influence on animal welfare (Table 6.4b).

Three participants referred for their answer to the previous question about the

influence of naturalness on hen health. Nine participants viewed this influence as

being positive, because hens have more opportunities to express their natural

behaviour and / or have less stress (9). Others found it positive because of more space

(2), small groups are better for welfare (1), better feed (1), fewer diseases (1), and two

participants referred to the fact that it is also better for humans. Two respondents

scored neutral. One of these neutral respondents, explained her neutral score with “It

does not matter how hens are kept; they probably do not know any better”.

The third question on naturalness regarded the influence of a natural way of keeping

hens on risks for public health. The answers show a diverse pattern of scores (Table

6.4c). Most participants gave a neutral score, while four participants thought that

naturalness leads to fewer public health risks and three participants believed that

6

CHAPTER 6

150

naturalness leads to more public health risks. One participant answered that he had no

idea and did not fill in a score. Participants who scored a higher risk gave as the

reason for their risk score the fact that they think there are more risks outdoors.

Participants who scored that a natural way of keeping hens leads to fewer risks gave

different explanations for their scores: hens have better resistance against diseases

and less use of antibiotics. Five participants who scored neutral explained their

neutral scores by the fact that outdoor or naturally kept hens are more likely to

contract a disease. Two participants who scored neutral answered that legislation and

inspections will ensure low risks for humans.

Questionnaire Part B

After participants had viewed the husbandry system with the hens in the aviary and in

the free-range area, they were asked to fill in parts B of the questionnaire.

First impression of the system The first question was an open question about their first impression of the housing

system and hens. Of the 18 participants, nine participants were predominately

positive, two predominantly negative and seven were positive about some aspects and

negative about others. In Table 6.5 aspects mentioned by the participants are

organized in positive and negative aspects. Participants expressed positive opinions

about the space for the hens and the housing in general. Negative opinions

predominantly regarded the high number of hens and the space available, especially in

the aviary area part of the system. For example, a participant answered: “Too many

hens indoors, free-range area looks more pleasant and hens have space to move around”,

or another participant: “A lot of space, but also many hens. If free-range is accessible,

enough space, but when it is closed, it may be too crowded.”

Table 6.5 First impression of the housing systems and hens: number of aspects mentioned by participants (n = 18) categorized in positive and negative aspects

Positive aspects n Negative aspects n

Enough space 10 Too many hens 8 Good housing 9 Not enough space 6 Hens look healthy / happy 8 It looks outdated 1 Natural behaviour 6 Not enough pleasure 1 Free-range area looks pleasant 4 Compartments 1 Good feed 1

FARM VISIT

151

The answers to the next open question “What do you notice?” mainly addressed the

number of hens, space and naturalness. Again, the aspects mentioned are organized in

positive and negative aspects (Table 6.6). Space and naturalness were considered in

either a positive or a negative way by participants. Nine participants viewed the

system as natural or mentioned elements that they perceived as natural, such as straw

or bamboo. In contrast, three participants remarked that there was no “real” outdoor

space or they felt there was a lack of greenery. Regarding space, six participants

thought that there was enough space for the hens, while two participants thought that

there was not enough space. Ten participants remarked that there were many hens,

and four of them referred specifically to the aviary area. Two participants answered

that hens did not have enough space to move around.

Table 6.6 Aspects about the husbandry systems mentioned by the participants (n = 18) categorized in positive and negative aspects

Positive aspects n Negative aspects n

Natural elements (e.g. straw, bamboo) 9 Many hens 10 Enough space 6 Not natural 3 Natural behaviour 5 Not enough space 2 Good feeding 4 Little pleasure 1 Clean 4 No artificial light in free-range 1 Light 2 Roof range may open and close 3

Compartments 3

Hens look good 2 Peaceful 2

Ventilation 2

Views on hen health, welfare and public health risks in the system The next question concerned the participants’ views on hen health and hen welfare

and their explanation of these views. All the participants scored hen health and

welfare in the systems between neutral and good (Table 6.7a and b). One of the

participants who scored hen health neutral answered that he did not know, but that

the hens looked well and had good feather condition. The other participant who scored

hen health as neutral remarked that the hens were young and had not yet reached

their adult weight. The participants (n = 16) who scored hen health as good answered

that they could see that the hens were healthy because the hens had good feather

condition (13), expressed natural behaviour (10), the hens look good (9), no sign of

injuries or lameness (5), good-looking combs or beaks (3), and they were not thin (3).

6

CHAPTER 6

152

Fourteen participants scored the hen welfare as good (Table 6.7b). To explain these

positive views on hen welfare, the following answers were given: expression of

natural behaviour (7), space to move around (6), good health (4), outdoor access (3),

good feather condition (1), good-looking combs (1), and good housing (1). The three

participants who scored neutral explained their scores with: limited space to move

around (2), doubts about feed and water availability (2), no natural life (2), and no

natural environment (1).

Table 6.7 Views of the participants (n = 18) on a) Hen health, b) Hen welfare and c) Public health risks in the system on 5-point Likert scales

a) Hen health

Poor health Good health

0 0 2 8 8

b) Hen welfare

Poor welfare Good welfare

0 0 4 8 6

c) Public health risks

Low risks High risks

11 4 2 1 0

When asked what the risks for public health are when hens are kept in such systems,

most of the participants (n = 15) scored the public health risks as low, but two of them

scored the public health risks as neutral and one scored a risk (Table 6.7c). Reasons to

score the risks as low were: hens have no contact with the environment (10), good

hygiene measures (8), trust in farmers, inspections and legislation (4), healthy hens

(1), and thus little use of antibiotics (1). Those participants who scored neutral or a

risk gave as reasons for their answers: many hens together (2), farmer tries to prevent

risks, but may not be successful (2), introduction of diseases into the flock by the

farmer (2).

FARM VISIT

153

Views on naturalness Questions regarding naturalness during exposure to the farm addressed the extent to

which the hens were kept in a natural way, and the naturalness of several aspects on

the farm. First, participants scored to what extent they felt that the hens were kept in

a natural way (Table 6.8). Nine participants scored that the hens were kept in a

natural way, two scored that the hens were not kept in a natural way, and seven

participants viewed the way of keeping the hens as neither natural nor unnatural.

Next, the participants were asked to mention aspects of the husbandry system that

they considered to be natural. Participants mentioned the following aspects: free-

range area (10), space to move around (10), expression of natural behaviours (9),

daylight (6), way of providing feed (6), straw (4), natural environment (3), and

bedding material (2). Three out of ten participants who saw the free-range area as

being natural specifically referred to fresh air. To the question “What aspects are not

natural?”, they answered: no “real” outdoor area (9), the design of the barn and aviary

(7), many hens (7), methods for feed and water supply (5), limited possibilities to

express natural or social behaviour (4), climate (1), and bedding material (1). Four of

the respondents who answered that there was no “real” outdoor area referred

specifically to grass or pasture. One participant answered that “nothing” was

unnatural.

Table 6.8 Views of the participants (n = 18) on the extent to which hens are kept in a natural way

on a 5-point Likert scale

Not natural

Natural

0 2 7 6 3

The participants were further asked to indicate for 12 aspects of the husbandry system

the influence on naturalness (Table 6.9). On the whole, most aspects were considered

to have some influence on naturalness. Aspects that were seen as influencing

naturalness were: daylight, floor bedding in aviary area and in the covered range, the

covered range, size of the covered range, and the bales of Lucerne. Aspects with a

lower influence on naturalness were: closing of the range in bad weather, number of

hens per group.

6

CHAPTER 6

154

Table 6.9 Views of the participants (n = 18) on the influence of various aspects on naturalness on

a 5-point Likert scale

No influence on naturalness

Influences naturalness

Daylight 0 1 2 4 10 Floor bedding 1 0 4 6 7 Floor bedding in covered range 0 0 4 5 9 Presence of covered range 1 0 6 3 8 Size of covered range 0 2 3 6 7 Range is covered with plates 2 1 7 3 5 Range’s plates and curtains are closed in bad weather 3 5 4 3 3 Space per hen 0 3 6 3 6 Number of hens per group 3 4 6 1 4 Bales of Lucerne 0 0 6 7 5 Containers with bamboo 0 2 9 2 5 Hiding places 1 3 2 5 7

What do you miss on this farm? The last question of Part B was “What do you miss on this farm?”. Six participants

answered this question with “nothing”. Those participants who missed something (n =

12) mentioned: more opportunities to express natural behaviour (5), more natural

bedding material (4), the presence of trees, plants or grass (4), hiding or shelter

places (3), or “real” outdoor access (3).

DISCUSSION

A farm visit was carried out to gain insight into citizens’ views on an innovative hen

farm in general, and in relation to hen health, hen welfare, public health risks, and

naturalness in particular. The farm visit was conducted with two groups of nine

citizens each. Compared with the Dutch population as a whole, males, older people and

people with a high educational level were somewhat overrepresented in the sample of

citizens participating in the farm visit. From literature we know that people’s socio-

demographic characteristics are associated with views on animals. For example, older

males with a lower educational level are less often concerned about animal welfare

than females, with a higher educational level (Chapter 3; Cohen et al., 2012; Kendall et

al., 2006). In our sample, however, neither of these two groups was overrepresented.

FARM VISIT

155

Therefore, the results give a good impression of the ways in which citizens view an

innovative laying hen farm.

The farm visit with citizens took place on a laying hen farm with a new and innovative

husbandry system that addresses concerns about hen welfare – especially those

related to leading natural lives – and about public health risks. The biggest difference

compared with the “conventional” free-range system with outdoor access is that this

system has a covered free-range area. Moreover, in the free-range area several

enrichment materials are offered, such as Lucerne on the floor, bales of chopped

Lucerne, hiding places, and grain is scattered twice a day. The free-range area and

enrichment materials stimulate the hens to express their natural behaviour. The roof

on the free-range area prevents certain public health hazards that may be increased in

outdoor husbandry systems, such as the chance of the introduction of avian influenza

(EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare et al., 2017; Gonzales et al., 2013; Koch et

al., 2006) and increased uptake of dioxin from the environment (EFSA, 2012; Kijlstra

et al., 2007; Pussemier et al., 2004; Schoeters et al., 2006; Van Overmeire et al., 2006;

Van Overmeire et al., 2009). In addition, the covered range protects the hens from

predation and cold and wet weather conditions, and might help to prevent certain

diseases in hens. Therefore, a free-range system with large covered free-range area

may be a successful future husbandry system that considers both the interests of

humans and of chickens.

Opinions on the husbandry system in general

Of the citizens who participated in the farm visit 50% expressed positive views on the

hen husbandry system, 39% were predominantly positive, but expressed some

concerns, and 11% were predominantly negative. Concerns regarded predominately

the large number of hens and the limited space to move around, and a minority

referred to naturalness. One interesting point was that half of the respondents thought

that the hens had enough space and they viewed it as a good husbandry system.

Although on this farm the hens are kept at a maximum of 6.7 hens/m2 in the aviary

area, instead of the 9 hens/m2 in conventional systems, a minority of the participants

thought that the hens still had too little space. It has to be noted that most of the

respondents who found that hens did not have enough space referred to the aviary

area, and those who found that there was enough space referred to the free-range

6

CHAPTER 6

156

area. A minority of three participants indicated that they missed a “real” outdoor. The

reactions regarding the first impression predominantly mentioned animal welfare

aspects, which suggests that the opinions on the husbandry systems are primarily

determined by views on hen welfare.

Opinions on welfare

Concerns about animal welfare are related to different ethical views on the subject.

Based on these different ethical views, three concepts of animal welfare have been

distinguished (Broom, 1991; Fraser, 1995, 2003; Fraser et al., 1997; Tannenbaum,

1991). The first view on animal welfare focuses on the biological functioning of

animals, such as good health and productivity. The second view focuses on the

affective states of the animals – such as pain, anxiety and stress – and the third view

focuses on leading natural lives(Broom, 1991; Fraser, 2003; Fraser et al., 1997).

Although some of the participants felt that the barn accommodated too many hens and

did not provide the hens with enough space, none of the participants scored the health

and welfare of the hens as negative. With regard to hen welfare in general and

specifically to hen health, it has to be considered that the age of the hens at the time of

the farm visit was 24 weeks and at that time all the hens looked good, because they

had good feather condition and good general condition. Hens at the end of the laying

period may have less good feather or general condition. Therefore, the participants’

views on hen health and welfare might have been positively biased by the favourable

appearance of the hens at the start of their laying period. When the flock is well-

managed and there is minimal disease or feather pecking, it can be expected that hens

will retain their good appearance and that the participants’ views will be

representative of the whole laying period.

As an explanation for their views on hen welfare, the participants referred most often

to the animal welfare aspects related to the welfare concept leading natural lives,

namely expression of natural behaviours and space to move around. These findings are

in accordance with literature, which indicates that citizens view animal welfare

predominantly in terms of possibilities of leading natural lives, and to a lesser extent

in relation to biological functioning or affective states (Bracke et al., 2005; Fraser et

al., 1997; Te Velde et al., 2002).

FARM VISIT

157

Before exposure to the farm, the participants were asked what hens need for good

welfare. Participants mainly mentioned environment-based welfare aspects, such as

good feed and water, space to move around, good climate and daylight. They

mentioned less often animal-based welfare aspects, such as natural and social

behaviour. These environment-based welfare aspects represent the minimum needs of

hens, which may explain why participants referred mainly to these welfare aspects.

When asked about their concerns about hen welfare, 56% of the participants answered

that they were concerned. Participants expressed relatively few concerns regarding

feeding, climate and daylight, which may imply that citizens trust farmers to provide

good feed and a good climate. The concerns expressed regarding hen welfare focused

primarily on space to move around, which has also been a concern for others

regarding animal welfare in general (Vanhonacker et al., 2009) or for pig husbandry

(Bergstra et al., 2017). Concerns before exposure and after exposure to the farm were

predominantly related to space to move around.

Public health

Outdoor poultry husbandry systems have been associated with increased public health

and food safety risks for certain hazards such as avian influenza (EFSA Panel on

Animal Health and Welfare et al., 2017; Gonzales et al., 2013; Koch et al., 2006) and

increased dioxin levels in eggs (EFSA, 2012; Pussemier et al., 2006; Schoeters et al.,

2006; Van Overmeire et al., 2006). Citizens, however, perceive the public health risks

for these hazards in outdoor systems as lower than in indoor systems (Van Asselt et

al., 2018). During the farm visit, participants perceived the risks of public health

hazards as low when hens are kept in this type of husbandry system. The participants’

risk perceptions regarding public health hazards associated with a husbandry system

with a large covered free-range area seem in accordance with the risk perceptions of

citizens regarding free-range and organic systems with outdoor access (Van Asselt et

al., 2018).

Before exposure to the farm, less than one-third of the participants expressed

concerns about public health risks of chickens or chicken products. These concerns

related mainly to the use of antibiotics and other medicines, and large numbers of

hens kept at high stocking densities, which is in accordance with the findings for pig

husbandry (Bergstra et al., 2017), and for animal welfare in general (Vanhonacker et

6

CHAPTER 6

158

al., 2009). It is notable that participants who did not express concerns regarding

public health risks gave as their explanation the fact that they trust farmers to meet

the requirements laid down in legislation and they have confidence in inspections and

risk prevention by farmers and authorities. It is interesting that participants assessed

the public health risks as low while they were seeing the farm. As reasons for these

low risk perceptions during the farm visit, they once again gave trust in farmers,

inspections and legislation to adequately prevent risks. Although the participants

expressed concerns about public health risks associated with hen husbandry before

exposure to the farm, visiting the farm seemed to reduce these concerns.

Naturalness

Public concerns regarding livestock husbandry and animal welfare have focused on the

aspect of leading natural lives (Evans et al., 2008; Fraser, 2008; Fraser et al., 1997; Te

Velde et al., 2002). A way to increase societal support for hen husbandry might be to

address public concerns regarding naturalness. Half of the citizens who participated in

the farm visit thought that the hens were kept in a natural way, while a minority of

two participants viewed it as unnatural. The participants viewed naturalness in

relation to hen welfare as possibilities to perform natural and social behaviour,

freedom of movement and outdoor access, which is in line with previous research

(Bergstra et al., 2015; Boogaard et al., 2008; Lassen et al., 2006; Te Velde et al.,

2002). However, participants also mentioned daylight as an aspect of naturalness. The

participants evaluated the covered free-range area as natural, though participants

nevertheless remarked that they missed a “real” outdoor area and pasture.

Before exposure to the farm visit participants were of the opinion that naturalness

influences both hen health and hen welfare. The main reasons for these views were

that the hens will suffer less stress and less diseases and thus enjoy better health, and

also have more opportunities to express natural behaviour, suffer less stress and thus

enjoy better welfare. It has been suggested that naturalness is also associated with

public health (Aertsens et al., 2009; Eurobarometer, 2007; Harper et al., 2002; Van

Asselt et al., 2018). However, we could not confirm this. Only a minority of the

participants thought that naturalness influences the risks of public health hazards.

Some of them thought that naturalness influences public health risks positively and

others believed the influence is negative.

FARM VISIT

159

Various aspects of the husbandry systems were considered to be natural, namely the

free-range area, space to move around, and expression of natural behaviours. Fresh air

seemed to be an important aspect of naturalness for some respondents. The aviary

area, however, was valued as unnatural as regards available space, the number of

hens, and the design. The participants’ views on naturalness involve animal aspects

and environmental aspects and can be described as “a natural environment with space

to move around and express natural behaviour”.

Conclusions and implications

Naturalness was positively associated with hen welfare and hen health, but no clear

association could be found with public health risks. Naturalness was predominantly

associated with environmental aspects, such as space to move around, daylight and

fresh air, and to a lesser extent with animal aspects such as possibilities to express

natural behaviour, e.g. in a free-range area. To comply with citizens’ perceptions of

hen welfare and naturalness, some adjustments for a husbandry system like that of the

farm visit may be suggested. Lower stocking densities in the aviary section, a less

industrial design and more daylight especially in this part of the farm may reduce

public concerns regarding hen welfare. Also, smaller units with fewer hens may be

evaluated as being better. The bedding material with some straw as used in the free-

range area was evaluated as positive and is recommended for use in the aviary area as

well. Based on the views of the participants, we suggest that husbandry systems in

general implement some enrichment such as bales of Lucerne, hiding places, and green

plants or trees. These enrichments seem relatively easily to implement in husbandry

systems, provide a natural look, and may also stimulate natural behaviour in hens.

Although participants expressed concerns regarding space to move around and

perform natural behaviours, views on the system with a large covered free-range area

for laying hens were mainly positive. Only a minority of the participants missed a

“real” outdoor access. The participants in the farm visit also evaluated the aspects hen

welfare, risks of public health hazards and animal and environmental aspects of

naturalness as good. This suggests that the husbandry system with a large covered

free-range area, which addresses public concerns about hen welfare and public health,

by providing a large covered free-range area, as well as enrichment such as litter with

6

CHAPTER 6

160

straw, bales of chopped Lucerne, hiding places, and grain, is an acceptable husbandry

system for the general public.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors thank the staff of the Beek laying hen farm for their cooperation and help

during the farm visit. This work was supported by the Dutch Poultry Expertise Centre

(PEC) and the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO).

FARM VISIT

161

REFERENCES





Boogaard, B. K., Oosting, S. J., & Bock, B. B. (2008). Defining sustainability as a socio-cultural concept: Citizen panels visiting dairy farms in the Netherlands. Livestock Science, 117(1), 24-33.


Broom, D. M. (1991). Animal welfare: concepts and measurement. Journal of Animal Science, 69(10), 4167-4175.




Eurobarometer. (2007). Attitudes of consumers towards the welfare of farmed animals (270). Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/ebs/ebs_270_en.pdf

Evans, A., & Miele, M. (2008). Consumers’ views about farm animal welfare: Part II European comparative report based on focus group research. Retrieved from



Fraser, D. (2008). Understanding animal welfare. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica, 50(Suppl 1):S1. doi:10.1186/1751-0147-50-s1-s1




6

CHAPTER 6

162







Kraaij-Dirkzwager, M., van der Ree, J., & Lebret, E. (2017). Rapid Assessment of Stakeholder Concerns about Public Health. An Introduction to a Fast and Inexpensive Approach Applied on Health Concerns about Intensive Animal Production Systems. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 14(12). doi:10.3390/ijerph14121534


Miele, M. (2017) Consuming animals, constructing naturalness. Vol. 24. Research in Rural Sociology and Development (pp. 245-263): Emerald Publishing Limited.

Pussemier, L., Larondelle, Y., Carlos, V. P. C., & Huyghebaert, A. (2006). Chemical safety of conventionally and organically produced foodstuffs: a tentative comparison under Belgian conditions. Food Control, 17(1), 14-21. doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2004.08.003




Tannenbaum, J. (1991). Ethics and animal welfare: The inextricable connection. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 198(8), 1360.




Van Asselt, M., Poortvliet, P. M., Ekkel, E. D., Kemp, B., & Stassen, E. N. (2018). Risk perceptions of public health and food safety hazards in poultry husbandry by citizens, poultry farmers and poultry veterinarians. Poultry Science, 97(2), 607-619. doi:10.3382/ps/pex325

FARM VISIT

163


Van Overmeire, I., Pussemier, L., Waegeneers, N., Hanot, V., Windal, I., Boxus, L., . . . Goeyens, L. (2009). Assessment of the chemical contamination in home-produced eggs in Belgium: General overview of the CONTEGG study. Science of the Total Environment, 407(15), 4403-4410. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.10.066



Ventura, B. A., von Keyserlingk, M. A. G., & Weary, D. M. (2014). Animal Welfare Concerns and Values of Stakeholders Within the Dairy Industry. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 28(1), 109-126. doi:10.1007/s10806-014-9523-x

6

CHAPTER 6

164

APPENDIX 6.1: Questionnaire

Part A included questions on the following subjects: 1 What does a hen need for good welfare? Open, max. 5 items

2 Are you concerned about hen welfare? Open

2a Why are you (not) concerned about hen welfare? Open, max. 5 items

3 Are you concerned about becoming ill from hens or chicken products?

Open

3a Why are you (not) concerned about becoming ill from hens or chicken products?

Open, max. 5 items

4 What is a natural way of keeping animals? Open, max. 5 items

5 What should a farm, where hens are kept in a natural way, look like?

Open

6 How can you see from a hen that it is kept in a natural way? Open

7 What is the influence on hen health of a natural way of keeping chicken?

Closed; less good - better health

7a Why do you think that? Open

8 What is the influence on hen welfare of a natural way of keeping chicken?

Closed; less good - better welfare


9 What is the influence on public health of a natural way of keeping chicken?

Closed; less risks – more risks


Part B included questions on the following subjects: 11 What is your first impression of this housing type? Open

12 What do you notice? Open; max 5 items

13 What do you think of hen health?

Closed; poor health– good health


14 What do you think of hen welfare?

Closed; poor welfare – good welfare


15 What do you think of public health risks? Closed; low risk – high risk

15a Why do you think that Open

16 Are these hens kept in a natural way? Closed; Not natural – natural

16a Which aspects are natural? Open; max 5 items

16b Which aspects are not natural? Open; max 5 items

17 To what extent do aspects contribute to a natural environment for hens?

Closed; No – contribute to naturalness

18 What do you think is missing in this housing system? open

Mariska va

General discussion

7

van Asselt

CHAPTER 7

168

INTRODUCTION

Increased public attention to animal welfare, has stimulated farmers to keep chickens

in husbandry systems that are potentially beneficial for chicken welfare, for example

by offering chickens outdoor access. At the same time people have become increasingly

concerned about public health and food safety risks related to livestock farming

(Chapter 3, Bergstra et al., 2017a; Hansen et al., 2003; Harper et al., 2001; Verbeke et

al., 2000). Keeping chickens in systems with outdoor access may, however, increase

the risks of certain public health and food safety hazards, such as Campylobacter,

Avian influenza and increased dioxin levels in eggs (EFSA, 2011, 2012; EFSA Panel on

Animal Health and Welfare et al., 2017; Kijlstra et al., 2009). Consequently, when a

choice is being made to build or design a new poultry husbandry system, a conflict

may occur between chicken welfare and public health risks. Judgment of this dilemma

and evaluation of issues such as chicken welfare and public health and food safety

risks may differ within and between groups of people, such as citizens and

professionals involved in poultry husbandry. Different stakeholder groups have been

shown to differ in their moral convictions regarding animals and humans (Bergstra et

al., 2017b; Cohen, 2010). These moral convictions may play a role in the evaluation of

issues such as animal welfare and public health and food safety risks, and in the

judgment of the dilemma.

To retain a licence to produce chicken eggs and meat in the future, public acceptance is

relevant for poultry husbandry (Thompson et al., 2011). Current poultry husbandry

systems have been designed based on input of professionals from the field of poultry

husbandry, but seem not to address adequately societal concerns (Weary et al., 2016).

Society expresses their opinions about livestock husbandry – in particular negative

opinions about intensive farming systems – by engaging in societal debates, social

media, NGO campaigns, and political voting, for example on for the ‘Animal Party’

(Partij voor de Dieren). Although these public opinions are often based on people’s

(limited) knowledge’, they do reflect their moral values considering humans and

animals, and convictions and perceptions related to livestock husbandry (Boogaard et

al., 2011a; Boogaard et al., 2011b; Te Velde et al., 2002). To increase societal support

the poultry husbandry sector may need to consider the societal opinions. Insight into

moral convictions and perceptions regarding hen husbandry and related dilemmas

may help to explain why people have concerns and may give guidance for future

GENERAL DISCUSSION

169

innovations. Relevant stakeholders are professionals working in poultry husbandry,

such as poultry farmers and poultry veterinarians, as well as the general public –

hereinafter referred to as citizens.

The main objective of this thesis was to study stakeholder opinions on the conflict

between chicken welfare and public health and food safety risks1. The judgment of

such a dilemma will be influenced by views on poultry husbandry systems and on the

issues involved, such as chicken welfare, public health and food safety risks, (Chapter

2); perceptions of chicken welfare in different systems, and of chicken welfare aspects

(Chapter 3); perceptions of risks to public health and food safety hazards in different

systems, and factors influencing risk perceptions (Chapter 4); and moral convictions

and moral arguments regarding humans and animals related to the conflict between

chicken welfare and public health and food safety risks (Chapter 5). To study the

implications of the results of Chapters 2 to 5 and to gain insight into citizens’

perceptions of an innovative laying hen farm, a farm visit was included in this study

(Chapter 6). The findings of Chapters 2 to 6 will be discussed here.

We will first discuss the views of citizens, poultry farmers and poultry veterinarians

on the preferred husbandry system, their perceptions of chicken welfare, and the

association between perceptions of chicken welfare and the preferred for a husbandry

system. Second, stakeholders’ risk perceptions of three public health hazards and the

role of intuitive feelings, also referred to as affect, will be discussed. Next, we will

reflect on moral convictions of citizens and famers related to chickens and humans,

and the association of these conviction with the judgment of the conflict between

chicken welfare and public health risks. Based on the previous discussion we will

explain the differences between stakeholder groups regarding moral convictions and

judgments. The views of citizens on hen husbandry during a farm visit, as well as the

implications of the present thesis for future poultry husbandry, will then be discussed.

Finally, the overall conclusions of this thesis are presented.

1 For the further discussion when we refer to public health, we mean public health and food safety risks, because food safety is a part of public health.

7

CHAPTER 7

170

PREFERRED HUSBANDRY SYSTEM

To comply with societal demands for welfare-friendly husbandry systems, the number

of poultry farms offering outdoor access to chickens, such as free-range systems or

organic husbandry systems, has been growing (CBS Statistics Netherlands, 2018).

Nowadays, consumers are more likely than they were in the past to buy chicken

products from those farms that comply with welfare requirements that are above the

minimum set in EU or national legislation. Chapter 2 of this thesis shows that citizens

prefer outdoor husbandry systems. Of the citizens, 73% preferred a laying hen

husbandry system with outdoor access, namely a free-range or an organic system.

Most of the poultry farmers (71%) and poultry veterinarians (93%), however,

preferred an indoor system – colony cages or an indoor non-cage system – for keeping

laying hens. In the context of broiler husbandry, citizens also preferred predominantly

outdoor broiler husbandry systems, while the professional groups preferred

predominantly indoor systems (Van Asselt et al., 2015; Vanhonacker et al., 2016).

These results demonstrate a disagreement between citizens and the two professional

groups on how chickens should be kept.

It is important to note that we chose to provide respondents not with information

about the husbandry systems, because we were interested in respondents’ moral

convictions and perceptions related to poultry husbandry. A reason to focus on moral

convictions and perceptions is that the ‘knowledge deficit’ of lay citizens as

explanatory factor of public concerns and perceptions has been questioned to be the

cause for the differences between perceptions of citizens and professionals (Hansen et

al., 2003). Little association was found between knowledge and perceptions of citizens

(Boogaard et al. 2011a; Ventura et al. 2016), while moral values and convictions are

associated with perceptions (Te Velde et al., 2002; Vanhonacker et al., 2008; Boogaard

et al., 2011a). Moral values and convictions form our attitudes towards humans and

animals (Cohen et al., 2009), perceptions of animal welfare (Fraser et al., 1997;

Boogaard et al., 2011a), and what is an acceptable level of risk (Hansen et al., 2003;

Ueland et al., 2012). When conflicts between different issues – like animal welfare and

public health risks – come to the fore, the balancing of these issues is influenced by

moral values and convictions and will differ between people.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

171

Another reason for not providing respondents with information is the difficulty to

select and provide unbiased information (Sturgis et al., 2010), especially about

complex issues, such as livestock husbandry systems and the effect on animal welfare

and public health risks. We also considered the fact that information provision in

questionnaires may cause a higher dropout of participants, in particular of participant

with a lower educational level (Sturgis et al., 2010). Therefore, we did not provide the

respondents with information in Chapter 2, and we provided the respondents in

Chapter 3 and 4 with limited information about the husbandry systems (Table 3.1 and

Table 4.1).

Preferring the one system or the other is likely to be related to the perceived

importance of a variety of poultry husbandry issues, such as chicken welfare, and

public health and food safety risks, and to the evaluation of such issues for the

different husbandry systems. To answer the question “Why do stakeholder groups

prefer different poultry husbandry systems?”, the stakeholders’ views on the

importance of poultry husbandry issues were studied (Chapter 2). All stakeholder

groups perceived food safety and hen health as the two most important issues of the 10

issues presented, independently of their preference for a certain husbandry system.

Moreover, citizens, poultry farmers and poultry veterinarians agreed on the

importance of hen welfare. However, the fact that different stakeholder groups all

considered these issues to be important does not mean that they evaluated these issues

in the same way. Differences in perceptions of issues such as chicken welfare may

cause different perceptions of the best husbandry system for keeping chickens.

Therefore, it is interesting to study the perceptions regarding hen welfare in the four

different husbandry systems, and the perception of different aspects of hen welfare.

PERCEPTIONS OF CHICKEN WELFARE

The three stakeholder groups perceived hen welfare as an important issue of hen

husbandry (Chapter 2). Preferences of the three stakeholder groups for a certain

husbandry system (Chapter 2) were in line with their evaluation of hen welfare in the

systems (Chapter 3). Citizens gave the highest score to the welfare of laying hens in

organic systems, followed by the welfare of hens in the free-range system with

outdoor access (Chapter 3). By contrast, poultry farmers and poultry veterinarians

7

CHAPTER 7

172

gave the highest score to hen welfare in the indoor non-cage systems, followed by the

welfare of hens kept in colony cages, and they gave the welfare of hens kept in organic

systems the lowest score (Chapter 3). This is an interesting result, because the

perceptions of the farmers and veterinarians regarding hen welfare in different

husbandry systems are not in line with certification programmes such as the Better

Life Mark (Beter Leven Keurmerk) of the Dutch Society for the Protection of Animals

(Van Wijk-Jansen et al., 2009). According to the Better Life Mark, the highest level of

chicken welfare is assigned to products from organic farms and non-organic products

produced in accordance with welfare standards comparable with those of organic

products. Hence, the views of citizens on the welfare of chicken kept in the different

systems are more in accordance with the Better Life Mark than the views of the

poultry farmers and veterinarians.

Concepts of chicken welfare

How people view the welfare of hens kept in different husbandry systems may depend

on, among other things, how they view good animal welfare and what is for them a

good quality of animal life. Based on different ethical perspectives, three concepts of

animal welfare have been distinguished (Fraser, 1995, 1999; Fraser et al., 1997;

Tannenbaum, 1991). The first concept of animal welfare focuses on the biological

functioning of the animals, such as good health and productivity. The second concept

focuses on affective states of animals, such as pain, anxiety and stress, and the third

concept focuses on leading natural lives, such as being able to perform natural

behaviours (Broom, 1991; Fraser, 2003; Fraser et al., 1997). The literature states that

farmers and veterinarians view animal welfare predominantly in terms of biological

functioning, while citizens view animal welfare in terms of leading natural lives

(Bracke et al., 2005; Te Velde et al., 2002; Vanhonacker et al., 2008).

To explain stakeholders’ preference for a certain husbandry system, it was important

to study their evaluation of hen welfare in different husbandry systems and their

valuation of the three concepts of welfare: biological functioning, affective states of

animals and leading natural lives. Therefore, in Chapter 3 we studied the perceptions

of different hen welfare aspects derived from the three different animal welfare

concepts. These welfare aspects were chosen based on the analyses of literature on the

perceptions of animal welfare, the stakeholder debate and the main public concerns

GENERAL DISCUSSION

173

regarding hen welfare (e.g. Bergstra et al., 2015; Bergstra et al., 2017b; Boogaard et

al., 2006, 2008; Bracke et al., 2005; Fraser et al., 1997; Lassen et al., 2006; Te Velde

et al., 2002; Vanhonacker et al., 2009b; Vanhonacker et al., 2008; Ventura et al.,

2014). In our study, we selected aspects of chicken welfare for all three concepts.

Citizens’ concerns focus in particular on the animal welfare concept leading natural

lives (Bracke et al., 2005; Fraser, 2003; Fraser et al., 1997; Tuyttens et al., 2010;

Vanhonacker et al., 2008). To gain insight into how people view leading natural lives

we selected more aspects for the concept leading natural lives than for the other two

animal welfare concepts.

For the concept biological functioning, we selected the aspects hens lay many eggs, a

treated beak and mortality (e.g. Bergstra et al., 2017a; Fraser, 2009; Fraser et al.,

1997; Vanhonacker et al., 2008). The aspects pain, anxiety or stress and injuries were

chosen to be studied for the concept affective states (e.g. Bergstra et al., 2017a; Fraser,

2009; Fraser et al., 1997; Vanhonacker et al., 2008). For the concept leading natural

lives, we included the aspects space to move around freely, environment meets natural

needs, outdoor access, scratching and dust bathing opportunities, enrichment, and ad

lib. feed and water (e.g. Bergstra et al., 2015; Bergstra et al., 2017a; Boogaard et al.,

2006, 2008; Fraser, 2009; Fraser et al., 1997; Lassen et al., 2006; Vanhonacker et al.,

2009b; Vanhonacker et al., 2008). The clustering of welfare aspects per concept was

done based on the literature, but the clustering of some aspects can be questioned. For

example, we included beak treatment in the concept biological functioning. From a

farmers’ perspective, beak treatment helps to prevent feather pecking and may

increase productivity and for that reason beak treatment was clustered in the concept

biological functioning. From a citizens’ perspective however, one might argue that

beak trimming affects the integrity of the hens and should be allocated to the concept

leading natural lives. This implies that the results related to the concepts of hen

welfare should be interpreted with care.

The valuations by citizens, farmers and veterinarians of aspects of chicken welfare for

each concept of animal welfare are presented in Figure 7.1. The three stakeholder

groups take the view that all three concepts of welfare influence chicken welfare.

Citizens considered the influence on chicken welfare of the concept leading natural

lives had the highest value, followed by affective states, and they considered the

influence of biological functioning to have the lowest influence on welfare of the three

7

CHAPTER 7

174

concepts. Our results confirm that for citizens, aspects of the concept leading natural

lives, such as space to move around freely, environment meets natural needs, outdoor

access, scratching and dust bathing opportunities, enrichment, and ad lib. feed and

water, considerably influence hen welfare and are the subject of citizens’ concerns

(Bracke et al., 2005; Fraser, 2003; Fraser et al., 1997; Te Velde et al., 2002; Tuyttens

et al., 2010; Vanhonacker et al., 2008).

Figure 7.1 Mean score (±SE) per concept of chicken welfare given by three stakeholder groups – citizens (n = 2259), poultry farmers (n = 100), poultry veterinarians (n = 41) – on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = absolutely no influence on welfare to 5 = absolutely influences welfare a, b Means scores of a welfare concept with different superscripts indicate a significant difference (p < 0.05) between stakeholder groups

Poultry farmers and veterinarians gave the concept biological function a lower score

than the concepts affective states and leading natural lives. According to the literature,

farmers and veterinarians have a predominantly function-based view on animal

welfare (Bracke et al., 2005; Fraser et al., 1997; Te Velde et al., 2002; Tuyttens et al.,

2010). This implies that when a chicken functions well biologically, e.g. lays many

eggs, people with this function-based view perceive the welfare of this chicken as

good. We may conclude that, according to farmers and veterinarians, the aspects of the

concept biological functioning as we studied them, including hens lay many eggs, a

treated beak and mortality, do not influence chicken welfare, and for them these

aspects are not of real concern for the welfare of hens.

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0


Influ

ence

on

wel

fare

Biological functioning

Affective states

Leading natural lives

ab

aa

b

b

b

b

GENERAL DISCUSSION

175

The two professional groups gave the influence on welfare of the concept affective

states a distinctly higher score than the influence of the concepts leading natural lives

and biological functioning. Farmers and veterinarians are aware that pain and stress

negatively affect the animals, animal health, welfare and their growth and production

rates. The concept affective states of chickens, including the aspects pain, anxiety or

stress and injuries, is a concern of farmers and veterinarians. Comparing the scores of

the citizens with the scores of the two professional groups for the welfare concepts

reveals that for citizens, the concept leading natural lives is subject of concern and for

farmers and veterinarians it is affective states of chickens. These different views on

chicken welfare may affect the preference for a husbandry system.

Perceptions of chicken welfare and preferred husbandry system

In outdoor husbandry systems, chickens have more space and a more natural

environment to express natural behaviour than in indoor systems (Bestman et al.,

2014; Freire et al., 2013; Lay Jr et al., 2011; Shimmura et al., 2010). In indoor

husbandry systems, such as colony cages or indoor non-cage systems, chickens have

fewer possibilities to perform natural behaviour than in outdoor systems, but chickens

have lower risks of on injury, pain, anxiety and stress due to diseases than in outdoor

systems (Freire et al., 2013; Lay Jr et al., 2011; Shimmura et al., 2011; Shimmura et al.,

2010). In outdoor systems, however, other disease risks, higher mortality rates and

lower efficiency than in indoor systems are reported (Freire et al., 2013; Lay Jr et al.,

2011; Shimmura et al., 2011; Shimmura et al., 2010). Citizens gave a high value to the

influence on welfare of aspects of the concept leading natural lives, which may explain

why citizens consider the welfare of chickens in outdoor systems to be higher than in

indoor systems. Citizens may not be aware of the side effects of outdoor systems. In

contrast, poultry farmers and veterinarians are aware of the side effects of the

outdoor systems, such as increased contact with infectious agents and predators, and

bad weather conditions (Knierim, 2006). Moreover, they consider the influence on hen

welfare of the concept of animals’ affective states – including pain, anxiety or stress,

and injuries – to be substantially higher than the other two concepts, which explains

why veterinarians and farmers accord a lower value to welfare in outdoor systems

than to that in indoor systems, and may explain their preference for indoor husbandry

systems.

7

CHAPTER 7

176

To explore the association between views on chicken welfare and the preferred

systems, Figure 7.2 presents the mean scores given by citizens and poultry farmers for

three concepts of welfare for each preferred system. Because the view of poultry

veterinarians was comparable with that of poultry farmers and the group of

Figure 7.2 Mean score (±SE) per concept of animal welfare given by citizens and poultry farmers for each preferred hen husbandry system on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = absolutely no influence on welfare to 5 = absolutely influences welfare a, b, c, d Mean scores of a welfare concept per stakeholder group with different superscripts indicate a significant difference (p < 0.05) between preferred best system

veterinarians is relatively small, we did not include it in Figure 7.2. It is interesting to

note that citizens and farmers who prefer the same system score the three concepts in

a comparable pattern. Both citizens and farmers who prefer an outdoor husbandry

system gave higher scores to the three concepts of welfare than those who prefer an

indoor system. The concept leading natural lives is given a significant (p < 0.05)

higher score by those who prefer outdoor systems. It suggests that people – citizens or

farmers – who consider the concept leading natural lives to be the dominant concept of

animal welfare view outdoor systems as those in which aspects of the concept leading

natural lives are best met, because chickens have more space to move around and to

perform natural behaviour, and thus enjoy better welfare. It is also interesting to note

that farmers who prefer indoor systems, gave a higher value to aspects of the concept

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Colonycages

Indoor non-cage

Free-rangeoutdoor

Organic Colonycages

Indoor non-cage

Free-rangeoutdoor

Organic

(n = 62) (n = 272) (n = 1162) (n = 485 ) (n = 28) (n = 51) (n = 10) (n = 10)


Influ

ence

on

wel

fare

Biological functioning

Affective states

Leading natural lives

GENERAL DISCUSSION

177

affective states than citizens who prefer indoor systems. This may be explained by the

fact that farmers believe that these aspects of hen welfare can be better safeguarded in

indoor husbandry systems, while citizens may be not aware of a potential difference in

the affective states of hens kept in either indoor or outdoor systems.

RISK PERCEPTIONS

Food safety and public health have become important issues for all stakeholder groups

(Chapter 4; Bergstra et al., 2017b; Verbeke et al., 2000). Citizens have positive

attitudes towards outdoor poultry husbandry systems (Chapter 2; Chapter 3; Van

Asselt et al., 2015) and they perceive products from outdoor systems as healthy and

safe (Aertsens et al., 2009; Eurobarometer, 2007; Harper et al., 2002). However,

outdoor systems have been associated with increased public health and food safety

risks for certain hazards, such as avian influenza, contamination of eggs with dioxin,

and contamination of meat with Campylobacter (e.g. EFSA, 2011, 2012; EFSA Panel on

Animal Health and Welfare et al., 2017; Gonzales et al., 2013; Kijlstra et al., 2009;

Schoeters et al., 2006). Therefore, we studied the perceptions of three stakeholder

groups regarding these three risks associated with different poultry husbandry

systems (Chapter 4).

The professional groups evaluated the risks of these hazards as being higher in

outdoor systems than in indoor systems, in accordance with the above-mentioned

literature. In contrast, citizens evaluated the public health risks of Campylobacter

contamination of broiler meat, increased dioxin levels in eggs, and avian influenza

introduction in laying hens as being higher when chickens are kept in indoor systems

than in outdoor systems and they perceived these risks as lowest for the organic

systems. The risk perceptions of citizens are not in accordance with the risk

assessment of these hazards in the literature. However, citizens’ risk perceptions seem

to be associated with their perceptions of hen welfare (Chapter 3) and broiler welfare

(Van Asselt et al., 2017). On the one hand they perceive chicken welfare in outdoor

systems as good, and the risks in outdoor systems as low. On the other hand, citizens

perceive chicken welfare in indoor systems as less good and risks associated with

indoor systems as higher than in outdoor systems.

7

CHAPTER 7

178

Professionals – especially farmers – seem to overestimate risks related to the outdoor

husbandry systems, and they may have an optimistic bias with respect to the public

health risks presented by indoor systems (Chapter 4). As was found in citizens, the

risk perceptions of farmers and veterinarians were linked to their perceptions of

chicken welfare: in the systems where they gave a high value to chicken welfare, they

accorded the risks a low value and in systems accorded a low value for chicken

welfare, they gave the risks a high value. It can therefore not be ruled out that risk

perceptions are influenced by views on animal welfare or poultry husbandry in

general. The reason why risk perceptions are related to perceptions of animal welfare

may be influenced by intuitive feelings, in risk literature also referred to as affect.

The role of affect

When people evaluate or judge complex situations, or when they lack knowledge, they

make a more intuitive judgment (Slovic et al., 2007; Van den Heuvel et al., 2008).

Such intuitive judgments are influenced by affect, which is a positive (like) or negative

(dislike) evaluative feeling (Finucane et al., 2000a; Slovic et al., 2007). In the

questionnaire the respondents were not provided with information about how the

husbandry systems perform on issues such as chicken welfare, and public health and

food safety risks. In citizens and the two professional groups, affect may have

influenced perceptions of the best husbandry systems, chicken welfare and risk.

Citizens An example of affect in citizens is their positive association of animal welfare, i.e. a

natural way of keeping chickens, with product attributes such as healthy food, safe

food and food quality (Aertsens et al., 2009; Eurobarometer, 2007; Harper et al.,

2001; Harper et al., 2002; Vanhonacker et al., 2009a). Our results suggest that citizens

perceive chicken welfare in natural systems, such as systems with outdoor access, as

positive, because hens have more space to move around, more possibilities to perform

natural behaviour, and as a result suffer less stress, have fewer diseases and thus

enjoy better welfare (Chapter 3 and Chapter 6). Therefore, they may view the

husbandry systems with outdoor access as the preferred husbandry systems. These

positive feelings about outdoor systems may be the reason why citizens perceive the

public health risks related to these systems as low.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

179

Over time, citizens have developed negative feelings towards indoor husbandry

systems which may have been triggered by media coverage of animal disease

outbreaks (Te Velde et al., 2002) and consequent mass culling of poultry. Another

reason that may underlie the negative feelings regarding indoor systems could be

related to chicken numbers. In general, indoor systems are perceived as being

intensive systems with large numbers of chickens. The farm visit showed that citizens

view the large number of chickens as negative (Chapter 6). Food scandals, such as the

dioxin or fipronil egg contamination, and increased attention for animal welfare

problems in intensive and indoor production systems may have prompted these

negative views. As a result, citizens developed negative feelings – also referred to as

stigma (Chapter 4) – towards intensive indoor husbandry systems. Consequently,

citizens seem to perceive various issues of poultry husbandry, such as chicken welfare,

and public health risks, as negative in intensive indoor husbandry systems.

Poultry farmers and poultry veterinarians Although the professional groups may be more knowledgeable about poultry

husbandry than citizens, affect may also have influenced professionals in their views

on poultry husbandry. In contrast to citizens, professionals, especially conventional

farmers, may have negative feelings towards outdoor systems (Gocsik et al., 2016;

Stadig et al., 2016). Several reasons may cause these negative feelings. First, in

outdoor systems, chickens have more opportunities to lead natural lives than in indoor

systems, but outdoor systems perform less well as regards aspects such as pain,

anxiety or stress and injuries (affective states), as well as disease incidences, mortality

rates, and production rates (Lay Jr et al., 2011; Shimmura et al., 2011; Shimmura et al.,

2010). Farmers believe that aspects of the welfare concept leading natural lives do not

influence hen welfare as much as pain, anxiety or stress and injuries (affective states)

(Chapter 3, Bracke et al., 2005; Fraser et al., 1997; Te Velde et al., 2002; Vanhonacker

et al., 2008). Second, farmers may worry about the higher risks of the introduction of

infectious diseases, such as avian influenza (Gocsik et al., 2015) and the financial

impact of an influenza outbreak. Third, farmers’ views may be influenced by their

current farming system, which is predominantly an indoor system, and they might not

be able to convert to an outdoor system (Gocsik et al., 2015). These negative attitudes

towards outdoor systems may influence the views of the professionals on the

preferred husbandry systems and the welfare and risk evaluation of outdoor systems.

7

CHAPTER 7

180

CASES REPRESENTING THE DILEMMA

The main objective of this thesis was to study the dilemma of choosing a husbandry

system that improves chicken welfare or reduces public health and food safety risks.

Chapter 5 we studied the judgments made by citizens and poultry farmers in a conflict

between chicken welfare and the risks of three public health hazards: Campylobacter,

avian influenza and dioxin in eggs. It is of interest to study how the three stakeholder

groups weigh up the interests of humans against those of chickens when presented

with a case. The three cases were presented, illustrating the choice of a system with

improved chicken welfare or a system with reduced public health or food safety risks

(Chapter 5). The results of Chapters 2, 3, and 4 showed that the uninformed citizens

perceived the risks of three public health hazards Campylobacter, avian influenza and

dioxin in eggs in indoor systems higher than in outdoor systems, and were not aware

of the dilemma (Chapter 4). To study the judgments of the conflict between chicken

welfare and public health risks we provided the respondents with information about

the husbandry systems, such as facts influencing chicken welfare, infection or

contamination rates of the hazards, and the probability and severity of health risks for

humans.

The Campylobacter case concerned a broiler farmer who switched from a conventional

husbandry system to a conventional-plus system that is considered better for broiler

welfare, but may increase the risk of Campylobacter contamination in meat. The

influenza case concerned a laying hen farmer who changed from a free-range system

with outdoor access to an indoor non-cage system that is considered less welfare-

friendly than the old system. However, this new indoor non-cage system is associated

with a lower risk of avian influenza infection in hens and thus lower public health

risks than the outdoor system. The last case concerned dioxin contamination of eggs

and described a laying hen farmer who keeps his chickens in an indoor non-cage

system and wants to switch to an organic husbandry system. Compared to the indoor

non-cage system, the organic system with outdoor access may be considered more

welfare-friendly, but the dioxin level in eggs may be higher, implying higher public

health risks.

When provided with the case descriptions for one of the aforementioned hazards, a

considerable group of citizens still made a judgment in favour of the welfare of

GENERAL DISCUSSION

181

chickens at the expense of public health. Of the citizens, 42% made a judgment in

favour of chicken welfare for the Campylobacter case, 24% for the avian influenza

case, and 50% for the dioxin case. Compared to the citizens, a small group of farmers

judged the cases in favour of chicken welfare: 30% for the Campylobacter case, 8% for

the avian influenza case, and 17% for the dioxin case. The judgments of citizens and

poultry farmers seem in line with citizens’ preferences for outdoor systems and

farmers’ preferences for indoor systems (Chapter 2, Van Asselt et al., 2015), and their

perceptions of chicken welfare in the various husbandry systems (Chapter 3, Van

Asselt et al., 2017).

Of the three cases, citizens most often agreed with a judgment in favour of chicken

welfare for the dioxin case, and farmers for the Campylobacter case. The

Campylobacter case concerns a choice between a conventional and a conventional plus

system for broilers, which are both indoor systems. The farmers’ judgment is in line

with their preference for conventional plus systems (Van Asselt et al., 2015), which

they also perceive as the system with the highest broiler welfare (Van Asselt et al.,

2017). Another reason for this relatively high level of agreement of farmers with the

Campylobacter case, might the by farmers expressed high self-protection ability

against bacteria on chicken meat (Chapter 4).

Half of the citizens judged in favour of hen welfare in the dioxin case by choosing the

organic husbandry system, which is associated with higher risks of contamination of

eggs with dioxin than the other two cases (Chapter 5). The change from an indoor non-

cage system to an organic system that offers outdoor access to chickens made

substantially bigger improvements to chicken welfare in the dioxin case than in the

other two cases. This bigger improvement in chicken welfare and citizens’ high

valuation of chicken welfare in the organic system (Chapter 3) may explain why more

citizens judged in favour of welfare and at the expense of public health in the dioxin

case than in the other two cases.

Citizens did not judge the avian influenza case in line with their preference for

outdoor systems and welfare evaluation of the various systems. More citizens (32%)

disagreed with the influenza case, i.e. with keeping hens in a free-range system with

outdoor access, than agreed (24%). Also, a low percentage of the farmers (8%)

favoured hen welfare over risks for public health in the influenza case. In contrast to

7

CHAPTER 7

182

the other two hazards, avian influenza is a risk for both human and chicken health,

and an avian influenza outbreak negatively affects chicken welfare. Respondents may

also have considered these negative consequences for chicken and human health while

judging the case. In consequence, they may have balanced the improved chicken

welfare in the free-range system with outdoor access against both the risks for public

health and chicken health and welfare. It suggests that only a minority of the citizens

and farmers perceived the welfare concept leading natural lives important enough to

override the risk of an avian influenza infection in chickens and humans.

It was concluded that when faced with a dilemma, citizens judge in favour of chicken

welfare more often than poultry farmers, even when informed about public health

risks (Chapter 5). This is interesting, because it was also shown that citizens are more

concerned about public health and food safety risks nowadays than in the past

(Bergstra et al., 2017a; Hansen et al., 2003; Harper et al., 2001; Verbeke et al., 2000).

Citizens might have ignored the higher public health and food safety risk of the

hazards presented, but there may be other explanations. First of all, as was shown in

Chapter 6, citizens may trust farmers to meet the requirements laid down in

legislation and have confidence in inspections by farmers and authorities to prevent

the public health risk. Second, people may feel that they are able to handle the risks,

for example as was expressed by a high self-protection ability for pathogens on chicken

meat (Chapter 4). Third, a group of people might refrain from consuming chicken

products when a hazard occurs, as has previously happened in response to food safety

incidents, and thus do not consider the case presented to be a dilemma. Another

explanation might be that a small group of people, more citizens than farmers, have

strong moral convictions about how to treat chickens, and these convictions regarding

chickens may weigh more heavily than convictions related to public health.

MORAL CONVICTIONS

A person’s opinion in relation to animal husbandry in general, and to specific aspects

such as animal welfare and public health and food safety risks in particular, is

influenced by moral convictions regarding humans and animals. In a society, people

share moral values (Beauchamp et al., 2009; Cohen et al., 2009), but convictions

related to these values might be weighed up differently by different stakeholder

GENERAL DISCUSSION

183

groups such as farmers, veterinarians and citizens, depending on the case presented

(Cohen, 2010; Cohen et al., 2016). These moral convictions are based on prima facie

principles – further referred to as fundamental moral values – from deontological and

utilitarian perspectives, such as respect for autonomy, justice or fairness, and

wellbeing (Beauchamp et al., 2009; Mepham, 2000). To study dilemmas in society and

the moral convictions involved, multi-criteria frameworks have been developed

(Beauchamp et al., 2009; Cohen et al., 2009; Jensen et al., 2011; Mepham, 2000;

Michalopoulos et al., 2008). In Chapter 5, we presented a framework to study the

conflict between chicken welfare and public health risks, and the role of moral

convictions and arguments related to fundamental moral values for stakeholders. Our

framework included moral convictions for various moral values relevant for the

dilemma: value of chickens, naturalness, fairness and wellbeing. In Chapter 5 we

explained how we selected these relevant moral convictions for our framework.

Moral conviction of citizens and poultry farmers

The valuation given by citizens and farmers to moral convictions related to the moral

values value of chickens, naturalness, fairness, and wellbeing are shown in Figure 7.3.

Farmers and citizens agreed to a certain extent (scores above 3) with all moral

convictions presented, except that farmers did not agree with chickens should reach

their natural lifespan (Figure 7.3). We will now discuss for each moral value the

related moral convictions that differ considerably between citizens and poultry

farmers.

Value of chickens Convictions related to the value of animals and how their value is related to human

value, i.e. the hierarchical position of humans with respect to animals, have been

shown to influence the way people treat animals (Bergstra et al., 2015; Cohen et al.,

2009; Cohen et al., 2012). People may value chickens only for their functional value

for humans, but they may also respect the intrinsic value of chickens, which means that

they value chickens independently of their usefulness for humans. Belief in the

intrinsic properties of chickens to experience sentience, such as the capacity to feel

pain, and emotions such as pleasure and boredom, may be a reason to attribute

intrinsic value to chickens (Heeger et al., 2001; Knight et al., 2008; Knight et al.,

2004; Warren, 1997). Our results confirm that citizens and poultry farmers agreed on

7

CHAPTER 7

184

Figure 7.3 Mean scores for statements regarding moral convictions given by citizens (n=2259) and poultry farmers (n=100) related to the moral values value of chickens, naturalness, fairness, and wellbeing (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Adapted from Table 5.3 (Chapter 5) * Statements differ significantly (p < 0.05) between citizens and poultry farmers

the convictions regarding sentience and both groups acknowledged to some extent the

intrinsic value of chickens. Nevertheless, this shared view on sentience does not mean

that they also share convictions related to the functional value of chickens and the

hierarchical position of humans with respect to chickens, i.e. humans are superior to

chickens (Figure 7.3). A considerable group of citizens (32%) consider animals in

general – including chickens – to be creatures that are as important as humans

because they are part of the ecosystem (Cohen et al., 2012), while in farmers this

group is smaller (15%) (Cohen et al., 2010). Consequently, citizens may consider

chickens to be not only an instrument with a functional value for humans, but also a

backyard or companion animal with associated values, such as relational value. For

poultry farmers, however, chickens are primarily an economic instrument and most

poultry farmers perceive chickens predominantly as production animals with a

functional value and consequently perceive their own position to be superior to

chickens.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

185

Naturalness What constitutes naturalness is not entirely clear (Bergstra et al., 2015; Miele, 2011;

Ventura et al., 2014) and we will therefore elaborate further on the concept of

naturalness. For some people, naturalness may mean respect for the self-regulation of

living beings (Verhoog et al., 2007), which is also referred to as respect for the telos of

animals – an animal living its life according to its nature – (Rollin, 1981). To study

naturalness, we included for the value naturalness the convictions natural behaviour,

natural lifespan and natural life. The value naturalness, as included in our study, is an

important concept of animal welfare. It is interesting to note that all convictions

regarding the moral value naturalness were valued differently by citizens and poultry

farmers. The most prominent difference related to the conviction chickens should reach

their natural lifespan; farmers disagreed with this conviction (score of 2.23), while

citizens agreed (score of 3.42). A short lifespan may be a relevant biological and moral

welfare issue (Broom, 2007; Bruijnis et al., 2015; Bruijnis et al., 2013; Gremmen et al.,

2018; Woelders et al., 2007), which seems to be recognised by citizens, but not by

farmers. In current poultry production, day-old male layer chicks are killed and broiler

chickens are slaughtered at around 6 weeks of age. By disagreeing with the conviction

regarding lifespan, farmers seem to have defended their current production practices.

Studies have shown the public resistance to the killing of healthy young animals or

production animals that are not productive enough (Bruijnis et al., 2015; Bruijnis et

al., 2013; Gremmen et al., 2018; Woelders et al., 2007). Our results confirm that

chickens should reach their natural lifespan is a conviction present in society. The

discussion on lifespan may continue in the future, necessitating adaptations in poultry

production practices.

Fairness For this study relevant convictions related to the moral value fairness are a fair

distribution of costs to improve animal welfare and to reduce public health risks, a fair

distribution of responsibility for chicken welfare and prevention of public health risks

among farmers and consumers and a fair treatment of chickens. Farmers strongly

believed that consumers are co-responsible for chicken welfare, and for the prevention

of risks related to consuming chicken products, for example by taking measurements

while preparing chicken products. Moreover, farmers viewed that citizens have to pay

for improvement of chicken welfare and prevention of public health and food safety

7

CHAPTER 7

186

risks. Citizens find themselves co-responsible for lowering public health risks and

improvement of chicken welfare and are willing to pay for that (Bennett et al., 2002;

Clark et al., 2017; Lagerkvist et al., 2011). However, citizens’ convictions regarding

fairness were not as strong as those of the farmers. The reason for that may be that

citizens view that certain minimal levels of chicken welfare and risk prevention are

part of the farmers’ licence to produce, and they expect farmers or authorities to

guarantee those levels (Chapter 6) without increasing the cost for consumers.

Nevertheless, a group of consumers is willing to pay for welfare plus products, for

example from animals that have outdoor access (Mulder et al., 2017).

Wellbeing The convictions related to the moral value wellbeing in this study focused on the not

harm principle. Convictions related to the promote welfare principle were also studied

by means of the moral values value of chickens and naturalness, because these are

important values for the interpretation of animal welfare (Bergstra et al., 2015; Cohen

et al., 2009; Fraser, 1999; Fraser et al., 1997). The not harm principle implies that

poultry farmers are responsible for taking care of their chickens and preventing public

health risks, as laid down in legislation. In this study, citizens and poultry farmers had

comparable convictions related to the value wellbeing as expressed by the convictions

a farmer should treat a chicken when it is ill and chicken or chicken products should not

harm human health. These convictions are minimal requirements to protect humans

and chickens, and farmers must respect these in order to have a licence to produce.

Moral convictions related to chicken welfare, husbandry systems and dilemma

Moral convictions regarding humans and animals influence views on how to treat

animals and, consequently, views on animal welfare and animal husbandry (Bergstra

et al., 2015; Cohen et al., 2012; Fraser et al., 1997). In our study, we asked about moral

convictions independent from the cases representing the dilemma and we asked about

relevant moral arguments in the context of the cases. These moral arguments were

based on the moral convictions formulated for the moral values value of chickens,

naturalness, fairness and wellbeing (Figure 7.3 and Chapter 5). In Chapter 5, we

confirmed that judgments of the dilemma whether to improve chicken welfare or

reduce public health risks were associated with people’s moral arguments as well as

with their moral convictions related to these moral values.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

187

The group of people, who judged the cases presented in favour of a husbandry system

that benefits chicken welfare included more citizens than poultry farmers and the

people in this group especially scored the moral arguments and convictions related to

naturalness, sentience chicken, intrinsic value chicken, and wellbeing chicken higher

than those who judged the cases in favour of public health (Chapter 5). In contrast,

those who judged the cases in favour of public health scored the moral arguments and

convictions related to humans are superior to chickens, functional value of chicken and

not harm humans higher than those who judged the cases in favour of chicken welfare.

These convictions are all related to ethical views on how to treat chickens. People who

view themselves as superior to chickens may perceive chickens as production animals

and value them predominantly for their functional value. They view animal welfare

predominantly in terms of affective states and biological functioning, and perceive

natural behaviour as being less important for chicken welfare. This implies that, for

them, naturalness – as in offering outdoor access, space and opportunities to express

natural behaviour – is not important. They may also focus on the negative

consequences of outdoor husbandry systems for the biological functioning and affective

states of the animals, such as contact with infectious agents and predators, and bad

weather conditions. As a consequence, they may value chicken welfare in indoor

systems higher than in outdoor systems. In contrast, people who see humans and

chickens as equally important may attribute intrinsic value to chickens and consider it

necessary for the animals to be able to live a natural life. They thus find it necessary to

offer outdoor access, which provides chickens with more space and opportunities to

express natural behaviour. These people perceive chicken welfare in outdoor systems

as better than in indoor systems and thus prefer husbandry systems which offer

outdoor access to chickens.

EXPLANATION OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN STAKEHOLDERS’ MORAL

CONVICTIONS AND JUDGMENTS

In society, most people share fundamental moral values related to humans and

animals, such as autonomy, wellbeing and justice (Beauchamp et al., 2009; Mepham,

2000). These fundamental moral values are deeply felt beliefs about how to treat

humans and animals, but people hold these values independently of topic or case. In a

practical case, the fundamental moral values related to humans and animals are

7

CHAPTER 7

188

adapted to the case, become moral convictions and are balanced against each other.

The balancing of moral convictions is influenced by several factors, which may explain

the differences between the stakeholders: context – whether or not connected to

poultry husbandry –, knowledge and experiences, intuitions and affect, and socio-

demographic characteristics.

Cohen et al. (2009) argue that the context of a person influences his or her balancing

of moral convictions. Being a non-farming citizen or a person involved in poultry

husbandry, such as poultry farmers, or poultry veterinarians, i.e. the context of a

person, may influence his or her moral convictions related to humans and animals,

and the judgment of a practical case. In their poultry husbandry context, professionals

such as poultry farmers and poultry veterinarians have to cope with a diversity of

issues related to humans, animals and the environment, such as the production of

healthy and safe food, farmers’ welfare, income, animal welfare, environmental

aspects, food security, and fair trade (Driessen, 2012). Convictions regarding these

issues will influence their convictions regarding the welfare of chickens and public

health risks for humans.

Moreover, the context of a person will influence his or her knowledge and experiences

related to poultry husbandry and the importance of relevant moral facts. The personal

context of professionals influences how they exert their practical knowledge and

experience. The importance of relevant moral facts, such as legislation and economic

viability of the farm, is influenced by the farmers’ poultry husbandry context. For

example, as farmers are financially dependent on keeping chickens, they will – in

contrast to citizens – always take into account their farming and economic situation,

and consequently give a high value to the conviction regarding the functional value of

chicken (Chapter 5).

With regard to a certain conviction or case, a person forms an intuitive view and

selects and values the importance of various fundamental moral values and relevant

moral facts, and these depend on the person’s context. When this person forms a

conviction regarding a certain topic, he or she will balance fundamental moral values

against relevant facts and his or her intuitions. Another example is the influence of the

professionals’ negative or positive feelings – affect – about outdoor husbandry systems

on their intuitions (Chapter 4). These negative or positive feelings may influence their

GENERAL DISCUSSION

189

convictions regarding naturalness and outdoor husbandry systems and thus influence

their judgment of the dilemma presented.

When we looked specifically at poultry veterinarians, an interesting and consistent

finding in Chapters 2 to 4 was that veterinarians shared the views of poultry farmers

on several aspects. Most professionals preferred indoor systems, viewed chicken

welfare in indoor systems as better than in outdoor systems, and perceived the public

health risks in outdoor systems as higher than in indoor systems. These results may

give the impression that veterinarians mainly take the farmers interests into

consideration. Society, however, expects veterinarians to consider the interests of

public health and animals independently from the farmers’ interests. Veterinarians

should not only focus on the concerns and interests of farmers, but should maintain

their independence from farmers in order to deal with moral dilemmas (Meijboom,

2018) in a way that it is socially justifiable. There is currently an interesting debate

among veterinarians. A group of veterinarians, the Caring Vets (www.caringvets.nl),

started the discussion with other veterinarians about how to treat animals, especially

animals in intensive farming systems.

When citizens who are not involved in poultry husbandry are asked about their

convictions, they consider the convictions more independently from the context of

poultry husbandry than professional groups do. They mainly consider moral values

regarding the value of chickens, wellbeing of chickens, naturalness and not harm

human. Citizens have negative intuitive feelings – affect – about indoor husbandry

systems (Chapter 4), because of media coverage of animal welfare issues and disease

outbreaks in livestock husbandry (Te Velde et al., 2002). These negative feelings will

influence their intuitions (Chapter 4) and thus their moral convictions regarding

poultry husbandry. Moreover, citizens will have limited knowledge about relevant

moral facts related to poultry husbandry, chicken welfare (Chapter 3) and public

health risks related to poultry husbandry (Chapter 4). Citizens’ convictions and

judgment will be based on 1) their possibly limited knowledge; 2) negative intuitive

feelings regarding indoor systems and positive intuitive feelings regarding outdoor

systems; and 3) moral values predominately related to chickens and their wellbeing.

Citizens in their role as consumers, however, may have different convictions and

might make different judgments from those they make as citizens (Harper et al., 2001;

Mulder et al., 2017), because consumers will consider other issues such as availability,

7

CHAPTER 7

190

price, and knowledge regarding labelling of products (Harvey et al., 2013; Vermeir et

al., 2006).

Socio-demographic characteristics, and in particular gender, could explain different

perception, moral convictions and judgments related to human and animals (e.g.

Chapter 2; Chapter 3; Chapter 4; Cohen et al., 2012; Finucane et al., 2000; Kendall et

al., 2006; Knight et al., 2004; Slovic, 1999; Vanhonacker et al., 2009a; Vanhonacker et

al., 2007). In general and in our study, poultry farmers and poultry veterinarians are

predominantly male while the citizens were respresentaive for the Dutch population.

Females are more concerned about animal welfare than males are, while males view

issues more from a economic point of view than female. (Cohen et al., 2012; Kendall et

al., 2006). These gender differences may parlty explain the differences between the

profesionals and citizens regarding convictions and judgments related to animals. For

example, in Chapter 3 was shown that compared to the sample mean, citizens in High

concerned group were more often female. This high concern group had the same level

of knowledge regarding chicken behaviour as poultry farmers had, but they had

different views on chicken welfare (Chapter 3).

FARM VISIT

Society has expressed concerns about poultry husbandry, chicken welfare and public

health risks. Our study provided insight into stakeholders’ perception of poultry

husbandry systems, chicken welfare, public health risks, convictions related to humans

and animals, and judgments of a dilemma. Citizens’ concerns and perceptions may be

based on their – possibly limited – knowledge and experiences related to poultry

farming. A farm visit provides the opportunity to study citizens’ perceptions and

judgments in a real-life situation and provides citizens’ information and experiences

with farming (Boogaard et al., 2006; Eurobarometer, 2005).

A recently developed innovative laying hen farm that tries to take societal concerns

into account, was selected for a farm visit. This farm with a large covered free-range

area considers concerns regarding public health hazards such as avian influenza and

dioxin in eggs, as well as concerns regarding hen welfare and naturalness. Our

question was whether this innovative system really addresses citizens’ concerns, and

GENERAL DISCUSSION

191

to what extent the farm visit influences citizens’ opinions. Therefore, two groups of

citizens were taken on a farm visit to a laying hen farm with a large covered free-

range area.

This farm’s barn accommodates two rows of multi-tiered aviaries and of either side of

the aviary area there is a free-range area, which is covered with transparent roof

plates. The free-range area is enriched with diverse materials, such as bales with

Lucerne, bamboo and hiding places (See Chapter 6 for further details). Citizens’ views

during the farm visit to the laying hen farm with a large covered free-range area for

laying hens were predominantly positive. They viewed hen health, hen welfare, public

health and naturalness as satisfactory or even good. This suggests that this type of

husbandry system, which addresses public concerns about hen welfare and public

health by providing a large covered free-range area, as well as enrichment such as

litter with straw, bales of chopped straw, hiding places, and grain, is a husbandry

system that can count on societal support.

However, the participants in the farm visit also expressed concerns. These concerns

were predominantly related to the welfare concept leading natural lives. The farm visit

provided insight how citizen view naturalness in relation to keeping hens. The

participants viewed naturalness predominantly as a natural environment and space to

move around and perform natural behaviour. To a minor extent naturalness was

associated with less use of medicine, such as antibiotics. According to Rozin et al.

(2004a) two different perspectives on naturalness can be distinguished: an

instrumental and a moral perspective. Based on our results we may consider the

instrumental perspective to be one of not using any chemicals or medicine and this

perspective is related to public health (Chapter 6; Rozin et al., 2004b; Verhoog et al.,

2007). The moral perspective on naturalness seem to be related to animals living their

lives according to their nature (Rollin, 1981; Rozin et al., 2004a). The participants of

the farm visit viewed naturalness as a natural environment and space to move around

and perform natural behaviour (Chapter 6), which seems a more practical approach of

the moral perspective on naturalness. Citizens showed a strong preference for

naturalness in relation to chicken husbandry systems, chicken welfare, public health

and the judgment of a conflict between chicken welfare and public health (Chapter 2,

3, 4, and 5), which is in line with a general trend of people having strong preferences

for naturalness, such as for natural food (Román et al., 2017). It suggests that for

7

CHAPTER 7

192

citizens naturalness ensures good animal husbandry, good animal welfare and low


Although the farm with a large covered free-range area provides more space per laying

hen than conventional systems, space per hen and the large number of hens, especially

in the aviary area, is still a subject of concern. Suggestions for improving the farm and

addressing concerns are: providing a more natural environment by offering more

daylight, a more natural bedding material, trees, plants or grass, and places for hens

to hide or shelter (Chapter 6). With regard to the concerns related to the large number

of hens, especially in the aviary area, some remarks and suggestion could be made.

The hens can choose between the free-range or the aviary area, but most hens choose

to be in the aviary area. Farmers could encourage hens to go to the free-range area by

making the range more attractive, for example by supplying more enrichment and

hiding places. These suggestions may also be incorporated into the existing indoor and

outdoor husbandry systems.

Scientific knowledge indicate that outdoor systems are potentially riskier for certain

hazard than are indoor systems. Citizens, however, perceive naturalness and outdoor

access important for poultry husbandry and prefer systems that offer outdoor access

to chickens (Chapter 2 t0 5). The farm visit, which provided citizens with knowledge

and experiences, showed that a new system that offers hens space to move around and

perform natural behaviour in covered free-range area, could be an acceptable

husbandry system. A farm visit is valuable because it may reduce certain concerns.

However, also new concerns may come to the fore (Hötzel et al., 2017; Ryan et al.,

2015; Ventura et al., 2016), such as concerns regarding the large number of chickens

and the lack of natural materials (Chapter 6).

POULTRY HUSBANDRY IN THE FUTURE

The general public has expressed concerns about current intensive poultry production.

To achieve successful innovations in poultry husbandry, adaptations should be based

on scientific facts related to multiple issues – such as animal welfare, public health,

environmental and impact – and should address concerns and convictions from

citizens and professionals. Citizens do not share the professionals’ views on the

GENERAL DISCUSSION

193

preferred husbandry system, welfare evaluations of chickens, or public health risks in

various husbandry systems (Chapter 2 to 4). The sector often chooses to educate the

general public by providing facts, with the aim of bringing public opinions and

convictions in line with those of the professionals (Benard et al., 2013; Ventura et al.,

2016). However, this kind of information provision by professionals to the general

public in order to resolve public concerns is questionable (Benard et al., 2013; Hansen

et al., 2003; Hötzel, 2016; Hötzel et al., 2017; Sturgis et al., 2010; Weary et al., 2017).

Recent research regarding the effects of providing citizen with information on their

perceptions of livestock husbandry showed that perceptions of citizens changed; for

some management practices they became more positive, but for other management

practices they became more negative than before (Chapter 6; Hötzel et al., 2017; Ryan

et al., 2015; Ventura et al., 2016).

Uninformed views gathered by means of the online questionnaire provided insight into

perceptions and judgments in representative sample of the Dutch population. Based on

these, a farm visit with citizens was done to get in-depth insight into the perceptions

of better-informed citizens on specific aspects and on a specific husbandry system.

Research regarding public perceptions may bring new concerns to the fore, because

moral values and convictions regarding human and animals are changing, as are farm

management practices.

In future research it would be valuable to take citizens to several farms with different

husbandry systems – e.g. the four systems that were subject of research in Chapters 2

to 5 – and to study their opinions on several aspects before, during and after the visit.

It would be interesting to know whether opinions change or not, to which issues these

opinions change and how long these changes in opinions last. Such farm visits also

provide farmers with the opportunity to get acquainted with citizens’ concerns, which

may help to bridge the gap between the poultry sector and the general public.

Although citizens, and professionals working in poultry husbandry have different

moral convictions and judge dilemmas differently, we like to emphasize that they do

share a number of fundamental moral values regarding humans and animals. When

there is a conflict between opinions of citizens and professionals, these shared

fundamental moral values might be a starting point for a dialogue between the two

7

CHAPTER 7

194

groups. Ideally such dialogue among stakeholder groups leads to a broad agreement,

which may form a common base for future poultry husbandry in society.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on this thesis the following main conclusions can be drawn:

- Citizens view outdoor husbandry systems as the preferred poultry husbandry

system, while professionals – poultry farmers and poultry veterinarians – prefer

indoor systems. All groups regard food safety and hen health as the most

important issues for poultry husbandry and all share the same view of the

importance of chicken welfare.

- Citizens and professionals evaluate hen welfare differently. Citizens

predominantly consider that the concept leading natural lives – i.e. space to move

around and perform natural behaviour – influences chicken welfare. Citizens seem

to view the concept leading natural lives to be safeguarded best in outdoor

systems. In contrast, farmers and veterinarians predominantly consider that

affective states – i.e. pain, anxiety, stress and injuries – influences chicken welfare

and may view this as being safeguarded best in indoor systems.

- Citizens and professionals who prefer outdoor systems view the welfare concept

leading natural lives as the dominant concept of animal welfare.

- Professionals perceive the public health risks of Campylobacter, avian influenza

and dioxin related to keeping chickens in outdoor systems as higher than in indoor

systems. In contrast, citizens perceive the indoor systems as riskier than the

outdoor systems.

- Farmers value moral convictions regarding functional value of chickens, humans

are superior to chickens and fairness – i.e. a fair distribution of cost and

responsibility regarding welfare improvement and risk prevention of public health

hazards – higher than citizens, while citizens value convictions regarding

naturalness higher than farmers do.

- Citizens judge the dilemma of improving chicken welfare or reducing public health

risks predominantly in favour of chicken welfare – in terms of leading natural lives

– while poultry farmers judge predominantly in favour of public health.

- Citizens and poultry farmers who judge the dilemma in favour of chicken welfare

scored moral convictions related to naturalness, sentience chicken, and intrinsic

value of chickens in particular higher than those who judged the dilemma in favour

GENERAL DISCUSSION

195

of public health. In contrast, those who judged the dilemma in favour of public

health scored the moral convictions related to humans are superior to chickens and

functional value of chickens higher than those who judged the cases in favour of

chicken welfare.

- The differences between citizens and professionals regarding moral convictions

and judgments of the conflict between chicken welfare and public health risks

could be explained by differences in weighing up of moral values, context –

whether or not connected to poultry husbandry –, knowledge and experiences,

intuitions and affect, and socio-demographic characteristics.

- Perceptions of husbandry systems in general, chicken welfare, public health risks

and judgments of dilemmas by citizens and professionals are influenced by

intuitive feelings, also referred to as affect.

- In the context of poultry husbandry citizens have a strong preference for

naturalness.

- Citizens’ concerns related to public health, and chicken welfare, as well as

concerns related to naturalness can be addressed in a laying hen farm with a large

covered free-range area.

7

CHAPTER 7

196

REFERENCES




Bennett, R. M., Anderson, J., & Blaney, R. J. P. (2002). Moral intensity and willingness to pay concerning farm animal welfare issues and the implications for agricultural policy. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 15(2), 187-202.


Bergstra, T. J., Hogeveen, H., Erno Kuiper, W., Oude Lansink, A. G. J. M., & Stassen, E. N. (2017a). Attitudes of Dutch Citizens toward Sow Husbandry with Regard to Animals, Humans, and the Environment. Anthrozoös, 30(2), 195-211. doi:10.1080/08927936.2017.1310985

Bergstra, T. J., Hogeveen, H., & Stassen, E. N. (2017b). Attitudes of different stakeholders toward pig husbandry: a study to determine conflicting and matching attitudes toward animals, humans and the environment. Agriculture and Human Values, 34(2), 393-405. doi:10.1007/s10460-016-9721-4

Bestman, M., & Wagenaar, J. P. (2014). Health and welfare in Dutch organic laying hens. Animals, 4(2), 374-390. doi:10.3390/ani4020374

Blok, V., & Lemmens, P. (2015). The Emerging Concept of Responsible Innovation. Three Reasons Why It Is Questionable and Calls for a Radical Transformation of the Concept of Innovation. In B.-J. Koops, I. Oosterlaken, H. Romijn, T. Swierstra, & J. van den Hoven (Eds.), Responsible Innovation 2: Concepts, Approaches, and Applications (pp. 19-35). Cham: Springer International Publishing.


Boogaard, B. K., Oosting, S. J., & Bock, B. B. (2008). Defining sustainability as a socio -cultural concept: Citizen panels visiting dairy farms in the Netherlands. Livestock Science, 117(1), 24-33.

Boogaard, B. K., Bock, B. B., Oosting, S. J., Wiskerke, J. S. C., & van der Zijpp, A. J. (2011a). Social Acceptance of Dairy Farming: The Ambivalence Between the Two Faces of Modernity. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 24(3), 259-282.

Boogaard, B. K., Oosting, S. J., Bock, B. B., & Wiskerke, J. S. C. (2011b). The sociocultural sustainability of livestock farming: An inquiry into social perceptions of dairy farming. Animal, 5(9), 1458-1466. doi:10.1017/S1751731111000371


Broom, D. M. (1991). Animal welfare: concepts and measurement. Journal of Animal Science, 69(10), 4167-4175.

Broom, D. M. (2007). Quality of life means welfare: how is it related to other concepts and assessed? Animal Welfare, 16, 45-53.

Bruijnis, M. R. N., Blok, V., Stassen, E. N., & Gremmen, H. G. J. (2015). Moral “Lock-In” in Responsible Innovation: The Ethical and Social Aspects of Killing Day-Old Chicks and

GENERAL DISCUSSION

197

Its Alternatives. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 28(5), 939-960. doi:10.1007/s10806-015-9566-7

Bruijnis, M. R. N., Meijboom, F. L. B., & Stassen, E. N. (2013). Longevity as an Animal Welfare Issue Applied to the Case of Foot Disorders in Dairy Cattle. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 26(1), 191-205.

CBS Statistics Netherlands, (2018). Landbouw; biologisch en/of in omschakeling; gewassen, dieren, nationaal. Retrieved 04-04-2018 http://statline.cbs.nl/Statweb/publication/?DM=SLNL&PA=81517NED&D1=176,244,272,315,338,342,367-378&D2=a&D3=a&HDR=G1&STB=T,G2&VW=T

Clark, B., Stewart, G. B., Panzone, L. A., Kyriazakis, I., & Frewer, L. J. (2017). Citizens, consumers and farm animal welfare: A meta-analysis of willingness-to-pay studies. Food Policy, 68(Supplement C), 112-127. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2017.01.006



Cohen, N. E., Brom, F. W. A., & Stassen, E. N. (2010). Moral convictions about animals and the culling of healthy animals in animal disease epidemics. An emperical survey among farmers and veterinarians. In PhD-thesis: Considering animals. Moral convictions concerning animals and judgement on the culling of healthy animals in animal disease epidemics. Wageningen, the Netherlands: Wageningen University.


Cohen, N. E., & Stassen, E. N. (2016). Public moral convictions about animals in the Netherlands: culling healthy animals as a moral problem. In F. L. B. Meijboom & E. N. Stassen (Eds.), The end of animal life: a start for ethical debate. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic publishers.

Driessen, C. (2012). Farmers Engaged in Deliberative Practices; An Ethnographic Exploration of the Mosaic of Concerns in Livestock Agriculture. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 25(2), 163-179. doi:10.1007/s10806-010-9293-z





Eurobarometer. (2007). Attitudes of consumers towards the welfare of farmed animals (270). Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/ebs/ebs_270_en.pdf

Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., & Johnson, S. M. (2000a). The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13(1), 1-17.

7

CHAPTER 7

198

Finucane, M. L., Slovic, P., Mertz, C. K., Flynn, J., & Satterfield, T. A. (2000b). Gender, race, and perceived risk: The 'white male' effect. Health, Risk and Society, 2(2), 170-172.


Fraser, D. (1999). Animal ethics and animal welfare science: Bridging the two cultures. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 65(3), 171-189.


Fraser, D. (2009). Assessing animal welfare: Different philosophies, different scientific approaches. Zoo Biology, 28(6), 507-518.



Gocsik, É., van der Lans, I. A., Lansink, A. G. J. M. O., & Saatkamp, H. W. (2016) . Elicitation of preferences of Dutch broiler and pig farmers to support decision making on animal welfare. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 76 , 75-86. doi:10.1016/j.njas.2015.11.006



Gremmen, B., Bruijnis, M. R. N., Blok, V., & Stassen, E. N. (2018). A Public Survey on Handling Male Chicks in the Dutch Egg Sector. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10806-018-9712-0





Heeger, R., & Brom, F. W. A. (2001). Intrinsic Value and Direct Duties: From Animal Ethics towards Environmental Ethics? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 14(2), 241-252. doi:10.1023/a:1011319921159

Hötzel, M. J. (2016). Letter to the editor: Engaging (but not “educating”) the public in technology developments may contribute to a socially sustainable dairy industry Journal of Dairy Science, 99(9), 6853-6854. doi:10.3168/jds.2016-11393

Hötzel, M. J., Cardoso, C. S., Roslindo, A., & von Keyserlingk, M. A. G. (2017). Citizens' views on the practices of zero-grazing and cow-calf separation in the dairy industry: Does providing information increase acceptability? Journal of Dairy Science, 100(5), 4150-4160. doi:10.3168/jds.2016-11933

Jensen, K. K., Forsberg, E., Gamborg, C., Millar, K., & Sandøe, P. (2011). Facilitating Ethical Reflection Among Scientists Using the Ethical Matrix. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(3), 425-445. doi:10.1007/s11948-010-9218-2

GENERAL DISCUSSION

199



Knierim, U. (2006). Animal welfare aspects of outdoor runs for laying hens: A review. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 54(2), 133-145.



Lagerkvist, C. J., & Hess, S. (2011). A meta-analysis of consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 38(1), 55-78. doi:10.1093/erae/jbq043



Meijboom, F. L. B. (2018). More Than Just a Vet? Professional Integrity as an Answer to the Ethical Challenges Facing Veterinarians in Animal Food Production. Food Ethics, 1(3), 209-220. doi:10.1007/s41055-017-0019-z

Mepham, B. (2000). A framework for the ethical analysis of novel foods: The ethical matrix. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 12(2), 165-176.

Michalopoulos, T., Korthals, M., & Hogeveen, H. (2008). Trading "ethical preferences" in the market: Outline of a politically liberal framework for the ethical characterization of foods. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 21(1), 3-27.

Miele, M. (2011). The taste of happiness: Free-range chicken. Environment and Planning A, 43(9), 2076-2090. doi:10.1068/a43257

Mulder, M., & Zomer, S. (2017). Dutch Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Broiler Welfare. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 20(2), 137-154. doi:10.1080/10888705.2017.1281134

Rollin, B. E. (1981). Animal rights and human morality: Prometheus Books. Román, S., Sánchez-Siles, L. M., & Siegrist, M. (2017). The importance of food naturalness

for consumers: Results of a systematic review. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 67, 44-57. doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2017.06.010

Rozin, P., Spranca, M., Krieger, Z., Neuhaus, R., Surillo, D., Swerdlin, A., & Wood, K. (2004a). Preference for natural: instrumental and ideational/moral motivations, and the contrast between foods and medicines. Appetite, 43(2), 147-154. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2004.03.005

Rozin, P., Spranca, M., Krieger, Z., Neuhaus, R., Surillo, D., Swerdlin, A., & Wood, K. (2004b). Preference for natural: instrumental and ideational/moral motivations, and the contrast between foods and medicines. Appetite, 43(2), 147-154. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2004.03.005



7

CHAPTER 7

200


Slovic, P. (1999). Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Surveying the risk- assessment battlefield. Risk Analysis, 19(4), 689-701. doi:10.1023/A:1007041821623

Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2007). The affect heur istic. European Journal of Operational Research, 177(3), 1333-1352. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2005.04.006

Stadig, L. M., Ampe, B. A., Van Gansbeke, S., Van Den Bogaert, T., D'Haenens, E., Heerkens, J. L. T., & Tuyttens, F. A. M. (2016). Survey of egg farmers regarding the ban on conventional cages in the EU and their opinion of alternative layer housing systems in Flanders, Belgium. Poultry Science, 95(3), 715-725. doi:10.3382/ps/pev334

Sturgis, P., Brunton-Smith, I., & Fife-Schaw, C. (2010). Public attitudes to genomic science: An experiment in information provision. Public Understanding of Science, 19(2), 166-180. doi:10.1177/0963662508093371

Tannenbaum, J. (1991). Ethics and animal welfare: The inextricable connection. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 198(8), 1360.


Thompson, P. B., Appleby, M., Busch, L., Kalof, L., Miele, M., Norwood, B. F., & Pajor, E. (2011). Values and public acceptability dimensions of sustainable egg production. Poultry Science, 90(9), 2097-2109. doi:10.3382/ps.2010-0138




Van den Heuvel, T., Renes, R. J., Gremmen, B., Van Woerkum, C., & Van Trijp, H. (2008). Consumers' images regarding genomics as a tomato breeding technology: "Maybe it can provide a more tasty tomato". Euphytica, 159(1-2), 207-216. doi:10.1007/s10681-007-9474-7

Van der Burg, W. V. W., T. . (1998). Reflective equilibrium: Essays in Honour of Robert Heeger. Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Van Wijk-Jansen, E., Ronteltap, A., & Jager, L. (2009). Het gezonde van biologisch voedsel: de beleving van consumenten (908615381X). Retrieved from



Vanhonacker, F., & Verbeke, W. (2009a). Buying higher welfare poultry products? Profiling flemish consumers who do and do not. Poultry Science, 88(12), 2702-2711.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

201

Vanhonacker, F., Verbeke, W., Van Poucke, E., Buijs, S., & Tuyttens, F. A. M. (2009b) . Societal concern related to stocking density, pen size and group size in farm animal production. Livestock Science, 123(1), 16-22. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2008.09.023


Ventura, B. A., von Keyserlingk, M. A. G., & Weary, D. M. (2014). Animal Welfare Concerns and Values of Stakeholders Within the Dairy Industry. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 28(1), 109-126. doi:10.1007/s10806-014-9523-x

Ventura, B. A., von Keyserlingk, M. A. G., Wittman, H., & Weary, D. M. (2016). What Difference Does a Visit Make? Changes in Animal Welfare Perceptions after Interested Citizens Tour a Dairy Farm. PLoS ONE, 11(5), e0154733. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0154733


Verhoog, H., Lammerts Van Bueren, E. T., Matze, M., & Baars, T. (2007). The value of 'naturalness' in organic agriculture. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 54(4), 333-345. doi:10.1016/S1573-5214(07)80007-8

Vermeir, I., & Verbeke, W. (2006). Sustainable food consumption: Exploring the consumer "attitude - Behavioral intention" gap. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 19(2), 169-194.

Von Schomberg, R. (2013). A vision of responsible innovation. In R. Owen, M. Heintz, & J. Bessant (Eds.), Responsible innovation: Managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society. . London: John Wiley & Sons. doi:doi:10.1002/9781118551424.ch3

Warren, M. A. (1997). Moral status: Obligations to persons and other living things : Oxford University Press, USA.


Weary, D. M., & Von Keyserlingk, M. A. G. (2017). Public concerns about dairy-cow welfare: How should the industry respond? Animal Production Science, 57(7), 1201-1209. doi:10.1071/AN16680

Woelders, H., Brom, F. W. A., & Hopster, H. (2007). Alternatieven voor doding eendagskuikens—Technologische perspectieven en ethische consequenties. Rapport 4444. Lelystad. Retrieved from: https://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/fulltext/45674

7

Mariska va

Appendices

van Asselt

Summary

Samenvatting

Dankwoord

About the author

List of publications

WIAS Education certificate

SUMMARY

204

SUMMARY

Since the 1950s poultry husbandry has changed from keeping chickens in backyard

flocks to keeping large numbers of chickens in confined systems on specialised farms

in order to ensure ample food. In those systems chickens were mainly valued for their

productivity. Over time, moral convictions regarding animals have changed, which has

led to societal concerns about the welfare of animals kept in these intensive husbandry

systems. As a result, alternative poultry husbandry systems have been introduced,

which no longer focus primarily on production output, but also on chicken welfare.

Alternative systems, especially those systems offering outdoor access to chickens, are

potentially better for chicken welfare, because chickens have more space and

opportunities to express natural behaviour. However, keeping chickens in these

alternative systems is also associated with higher public health and food safety risks

for certain hazards, such as Campylobacter contamination of broiler meat, avian

influenza introduction in laying hen flocks, and increased dioxin levels in eggs. It

implies that the demand for poultry husbandry systems that are potentially beneficial

for chicken welfare may conflict with the demand for systems with low public health

risks and producing safe chicken products.

For successful innovation of poultry husbandry systems that can count on societal

support, interaction is needed between society and the poultry sector. Therefore,

insight is needed into the views of key stakeholder groups – citizens, poultry farmers

and poultry veterinarians – concerning poultry husbandry. The main objective of this

thesis was to study stakeholders’ views on the conflict between chicken welfare and

public health and food safety risks and relevant moral arguments and convictions.

Therefore, the subsequent chapters of this thesis presented the perceptions of three

stakeholder groups regarding hen husbandry systems, hen welfare, public health and

food safety risks, moral convictions, and opinions on the dilemma of improving

chicken welfare or reducing public health risks. Moreover, citizens views during a

farm visit to an innovative husbandry system that addresses concerns regarding hen

welfare and public health risks were presented.

The first part of the thesis is based on an online questionnaire, which was filled out by

representatives of the three stakeholder groups: citizens (n = 2259), poultry farmers

(n = 100) and poultry veterinarians (n = 41). The questionnaire was based on a

SUMMARY

205

literature review, public debates on hen husbandry, and input from a consulting group.

It included questions on the preferred hen husbandry system and the importance of

husbandry issues, knowledge of poultry husbandry, perceptions of chicken welfare,

risk perceptions of public health hazards, three cases representing the dilemma of

improving chicken welfare or reducing public health risks, moral convictions and

arguments relevant to the dilemma, and socio-demographic characteristics.

Chapter 2 presented the perceptions of citizens, poultry farmers and poultry

veterinarians of the preferred system for laying hen husbandry and the importance of

10 issues of hen husbandry. Participants were asked which system was the best

systems for hen husbandry in their opinion. They could choose from the most

commonly used hen husbandry systems in the Netherlands – colony cages, non-cage indoor system, free-range or an organic system with outdoor access –. Most citizens

perceived an outdoor system, either a free-range system (51%) or an organic system

(22%) as the preferred system. In contrast, the majority of poultry farmers and

poultry veterinarians perceived an indoor system, either indoor non-cage system (51%

and 50% respectively) or colony cages (28% and 44% respectively), as the preferred

husbandry system. With regard to the importance of the 10 issues of hen husbandry,

all stakeholder groups regarded ‘food safety’ and ‘hen health’ as the most important

issues for poultry husbandry. The three groups perceived ‘hen welfare’ as equally

important. Compared to farmers and veterinarians, citizens perceived the issues

‘natural needs of hens’ and ‘environmentally friendly’ as more important, and the

issues ‘hen health’, ‘farmer income’ and ‘hens lay many eggs’ as less important.

Citizens who preferred an outdoor husbandry system, perceive the issues ‘hen health’,

‘hen welfare’, ‘natural needs of hens’ and ‘environmentally friendly’ as more

important, and ‘cheap eggs’, ‘farmer income’ and ‘hens lay many eggs’ as less

important than citizens who prefer indoor systems.

Chapter 3 presented the stakeholders’ perceptions of laying hen welfare in four

husbandry systems – colony cages, non-cage indoor system, free-range and an organic system with outdoor access – and their perceptions of chicken welfare aspects. Citizens

perceived hen welfare in an organic husbandry system as being the highest of the four

husbandry systems, while farmers and veterinarians perceived hen welfare in an

indoor non-cage system as the highest. Differences between the welfare scores given

by citizens and those given by the two professional groups could be explained by A

SUMMARY

206

different perceptions of hen welfare aspects, knowledge regarding hen behaviour and

socio-demographic characteristics. Compared to the professionals, citizens perceived

the influence on welfare of aspects related to natural behaviour as higher and of the

influence of the aspects pain, and anxiety or stress as lower. This seemed to clarify

citizens’ high welfare scores for the outdoor systems and the professionals’ high

welfare scores for the indoor systems. Based on their scores for hen welfare aspects,

four different clusters of citizens could be distinguished: a Low concern, Moderate concern, High concern and Diverse cluster. Compared to the other clusters, citizens in

the High concern cluster were more often female, between 25 and 44 years, more

highly educated, they more often had pets, consumed meat less frequently, and more

often donate to animal welfare or nature organisations. The High concern cluster gave

lower scores for the welfare of hens kept in the colony cage system and higher scores

for the welfare of hens in the organic system than the other three clusters. It was

concluded that professionals and citizens evaluate hen welfare differently. Citizens

predominantly consider that the concept leading natural lives influences chicken

welfare, while farmers and veterinarians predominantly consider that affective states

– i.e. pain, anxiety, stress and injuries – influences chicken welfare.

Risk perceptions of public health and food safety hazards in various poultry husbandry

systems may affect the acceptability of those systems. Therefore, in Chapter 4 we

studied stakeholders’ perceptions of Campylobacter contamination of broiler meat,

avian influenza introduction in laying hens, and altered dioxin levels in eggs for the

most commonly used broiler and laying hen husbandry systems, and factors explaining

these risk perceptions. Compared to the two professional groups, citizens perceived

the risks of the three hazards to be higher in the indoor systems and lower in the

outdoor systems. Citizens reported higher concerns regarding various factors of risk

perception – i.e. unknownness, trust, severity, voluntariness, type of hazard and personal control – than the two professional groups did. Poultry farmers and

veterinarians might have an optimistic bias regarding the public health risks related to

poultry farms and with that seem to deny risks for public health. The socio-

demographic characteristics of the citizens were associated with risk perceptions.

Female respondents compared to male respondents and respondents who consumed

meat once a week or less compared to those who ate meat more often perceived the

risks of the three hazards in indoor systems to be higher. Respondents who grew up on

a farm more often gave lower scores for the risks of indoor systems and higher scores

SUMMARY

207

for those of outdoor systems than respondents who did not grow up on a farm. It was

concluded that professionals perceive the public health risks of Campylobacter, avian

influenza and dioxin related to keeping chickens in outdoor systems as higher than in

indoor systems, while citizens perceive the indoor systems as riskier than the outdoor

systems. We suggest that risk perceptions of all stakeholder groups are influenced by

intuitive feelings – affect – and underlying values.

Welfare-friendly outdoor poultry husbandry systems are associated with potentially

higher public health risks for certain hazards, such as Campylobacter, avian influenza

and dioxin. This gives rise to a dilemma: whether to improve chicken welfare or

reduce these public health risks. In Chapter 5 we studied the views of citizens and

poultry farmers in judging this dilemma, as well as relevant moral arguments and

moral convictions, in a practical context. Citizens and poultry farmers judged three

practical cases that illustrate a conflict between chicken welfare and public health

risks for Campylobacter, avian influenza and dioxin. Furthermore, participants scored

the importance of moral arguments and to what extent they agreed with moral

convictions related to humans and chickens. Citizens judged the dilemma of improving

chicken welfare or reducing public health risks predominantly in favour of chicken

welfare, in terms of leading natural lives, while poultry farmers judged it

predominantly in favour of public health. Different valuations of moral arguments and

convictions, predominantly those regarding the value of chickens and naturalness, could explain the various judgments. Farmers valued moral convictions regarding

functional value of chickens, humans are superior to chickens and fairness – i.e. a fair

distribution of cost and responsibility regarding welfare improvement and risk

prevention of public health hazards – higher than citizens, while citizens valued

convictions regarding naturalness higher than farmers did. Regarding all stakeholders,

the group of people who judged the dilemma in favour of chicken welfare scored moral

convictions related to naturalness, sentience chicken, and intrinsic value of chickens, in

particular, higher than those who judged the cases in favour of public health. In

contrast, those who judged the cases in favour of public health scored the moral

convictions related to humans are superior to chickens and functional value of chickens higher than those who judged the cases in favour of chicken welfare. We argued that

the stakeholders’ judgments depend on their context, i.e. whether or not they are

involved in poultry farming.

A

SUMMARY

208

Concerns of the general public regarding animal welfare and public health in relation

to livestock husbandry seem predominantly related to naturalness. What citizens

consider to be natural and how they view an innovative hen husbandry system that

takes account of concerns about naturalness, hen welfare and public health, is not

clear. Therefore, during a farm visit, views of citizens on an innovative laying hen

husbandry system with an indoor aviary system and a large covered free-range area,

as well as related aspects, such as hen welfare, hen health and public health risks,

were studied. Two groups of nine participants filled out a questionnaire, partly before

and partly while seeing the hens in the husbandry system. Results showed that

participants were predominantly positive regarding the systems in general, and

regarding hen health, hen welfare and public health risks, and the large covered free-

range area. However, participants expressed concerns about the space chickens have

to move around and perform natural behaviour, and these concerns were

predominantly related to the aviary section. This confirms that citizens focus on the

welfare concept leading natural lives. The participants’ views on naturalness could be

described as “a natural environment with space to move around and express natural behaviour”. Suggestions for improving hen husbandry systems in accordance with

citizens’ concerns for the aviary section are: lower stocking densities, a less industrial

design, more daylight and the use of straw as bedding material. Based on the views of

the participants, we suggest that husbandry systems in general could implement some

enrichment for hens, such as bales of Lucerne, hiding places, and green plants or trees.

It was concluded that citizens’ concerns related to public health, chicken welfare and

naturalness could be addressed in a free-range system with a large covered free-range

area.

Chapter 7 discussed and synthesised the results of the preceding chapters. We

explained the different views of citizens and professionals – poultry farmers and

poultry veterinarians – regarding perceptions, moral convictions and judgments.

Finally, the implications of this study for future poultry husbandry were discussed. We

concluded that differences in views are influenced by:

- differences in perceptions of chicken welfare

- differences perceptions of public health risks of various chicken husbandry

systems

- differences in moral convictions related to chicken welfare and husbandry systems

SUMMARY

209

- differences in weighing up of moral values

- context, i.e. whether or not someone is involved in poultry farming

- affect and intuition

- knowledge and experiences related to poultry farming

- socio-demographic characteristics

A

SAMENVATTING

210

SAMENVATTING

De vraag naar voldoende voedsel heeft ertoe geleid dat de pluimveehouderij na 1950 is

veranderd van het houden van kleine koppels kippen op het erf naar het binnenhouden

van grote aantallen kippen op gespecialiseerde pluimveebedrijven. De kippen op deze

intensieve bedrijven werden vooral gewaardeerd voor hun productiviteit. Na verloop

van tijd zijn de morele overtuigingen met betrekking tot dieren veranderd en dat

leidde tot maatschappelijke zorgen over het welzijn van dieren in deze intensive

houderijsystemen. Mede daarom werden alternatieve pluimveehouderijsystemen

geïntroduceerd, waarin de focus niet alleen ligt op hoge productie, maar ook op het

welzijn van de kippen. Alternatieve houderijsystemen, zoals systemen die kippen een

vrije uitloop naar buiten bieden, zijn potentieel beter voor het welzijn van de kippen,

omdat de kippen meer ruimte en mogelijkheden hebben om natuurlijk gedrag uit te

oefenen. Echter, deze alternatieve houderijsystemen worden ook geassocieerd met

hogere volksgezondheids- en voedselveiligheidsrisico’s voor bepaalde

gezondheidsgevaren, zoals Campylobacter contaminatie van kippenvlees, introductie

van aviaire influenza in leghennen, en verhoogde dioxinegehalten in eieren. De vraag

naar pluimveehouderijsystemen die potentieel beter zijn voor het welzijn van kippen

kan dus conflicteren met de vraag naar houderijsystemen die veilige kipproducten

produceren en lage volksgezondheidrisico’s opleveren.

Voor succesvolle innovaties in de pluimveehouderij die op maatschappelijke steun

kunnen rekenen is input nodig vanuit de maatschappij. Inzicht in de percepties van de

belangrijkste stakeholdergroepen – burgers, pluimveehouders en -dierenartsen – over

de pluimveehouderij geeft kennis die bij kan dragen aan succesvolle innovaties. Het

doel van deze thesis was het bestuderen van de percepties van stakeholdergroepen van

het conflict tussen het welzijn van kippen en volksgezondheids- en voedselveiligheids-

risico’s, en relevante morele overtuigingen en argumenten. Daarom presenteren de

opeenvolgende hoofdstukken van deze thesis de percepties van drie stakeholder-

groepen ten aanzien van houderijsystemen voor leghennen, het welzijn van leghennen,

volksgezondheids- en voedselveiligheidsrisico’s, morele overtuigingen en oordelen

over het dilemma of het welzijn van kippen moet worden verbeterd of

volksgezondheidsrisico’s moeten worden verlaagd. Daarnaast zijn de percepties van

burgers tijdens een bezoek aan een innovatief houderijsysteem dat tegemoetkomt aan

SAMENVATTING

211

zorgen ten aanzien van het welzijn van leghennen en volksgezondheidsrisico’s

gepresenteerd.

Het eerste deel van deze thesis is gebaseerd op een online vragenlijst die is ingevuld

door vertegenwoordigers van de drie stakeholdergroepen: burgers (n = 2259),

pluimveehouders (n = 100) en pluimveedierenartsen (n = 41). De vragenlijst was

gebaseerd op literatuuronderzoek, het publieke debat over de pluimveehouderij, en

input van een klankbordgroep. De vragenlijst bevatte vragen over welk

houderijsysteem men het beste vond, het belang van verschillende issues, kennis van

de pluimveehouderij, percepties van het welzijn van kippen, risicopercepties van

volksgezondheidsgevaren, drie casussen over het dilemma of het welzijn van kippen

moet worden verbeterd of volksgezondheidrisico’s moeten worden verlaagd, morele

overtuigingen en argumenten relevant voor het dilemma, en socio-demografische

kenmerken.

Hoofstuk 2 presenteert de percepties van burgers, pluimveehouders en -dierenartsen

ten aanzien van het beste houderijsysteem voor leghennen en het belang van 10 issues

die spelen in de pluimveehouderij. Aan de deelnemers was gevraagd welk

houderijsysteem voor leghennen zij het beste vonden. Ze konden kiezen uit de meest

voorkomende houderijsystemen voor leghennen in Nederland – koloniehuisvesting, scharrel, scharrel met vrije uitloop en een biologisch systeem. De meeste burgers

vonden een systeem met vrije uitloop, ofwel scharrel met vrije uitloop (51%) of een

biologisch systeem (22%) het beste systeem. In tegenstelling tot de burgers vond het

grootste deel van de pluimveehouders en pluimveedierenartsen een systeem zonder

uitloop naar buiten, ofwel scharrel (51% en respectievelijk 50%) of koloniehuisvesting

(28% en respectievelijk 44%) het beste systeem. Alle stakeholdergroepen vonden de

issues ‘voedselveiligheid’ en ‘gezondheid van leghennen’ de belangrijkste issues van de

10 issues, en zij vonden het ‘welzijn van hennen’ even belangrijk. Vergeleken met

pluimveehouders en pluimveedierenartsen vonden burgers de issues ‘natuurlijke

behoeften van leghennen’ en ‘milieuvriendelijk’ belangrijker, en ‘gezondheid van

hennen’, ‘inkomen van de veehouder’ en ‘hennen leggen veel eieren’ minder

belangrijk. Burgers die een systeem met vrije uitloop het beste vonden, beoordeelden

de issues ‘gezondheid van hennen’, ‘welzijn van hennen’, ‘natuurlijke behoefte van

hennen’ en ‘milieuvriendelijk’ als belangrijker, en ‘goedkope eieren’, ‘inkomen van de A

SAMENVATTING

212

pluimveehouder’ en ‘hennen leggen veel eieren’ als minder belangrijk dan burgers die

een systeem zonder vrije uitloop het beste vonden.

Hoofdstuk 3 geeft de percepties van stakeholders weer ten aanzien van het welzijn van

leghennen gehouden in vier verschillende houderijsystemen – koloniehuisvesting, scharrel, scharrel met vrije uitloop en een biologisch systeem. Burgers vonden het

welzijn van leghennen in het biologische systeem het beste, terwijl pluimveehouders

en -dierenartsen het welzijn in het scharrelsysteem zonder uitloop het beste vonden.

De verschillen tussen de scores van burgers en de twee groepen professionals konden

verklaard worden door verschillende percepties van welzijnsaspecten, kennis van het

gedrag van kippen en socio-demografische kenmerken. Vergeleken met de

professionals beoordeelden burgers de invloed op het welzijn van de hennen van

aspecten gerelateerd aan natuurlijk gedrag hoger, en de invloed van de aspecten pijn,

en angst en stress lager. Dit lijkt de hogere welzijnsscores van burgers voor de

systemen met vrije uitloop en die van de professionals voor de systemen zonder

uitloop te verklaren. Op basis van de scores voor de welzijnsaspecten konden vier

clusters van burgers onderscheiden worden: een laag bezorgd, matig bezorgd, hoog bezorgd en een divers cluster. De burgers in het hoog bezorgde cluster waren

vergeleken met de andere clusters vaker vrouw, tussen 25 en 44 jaar, hoger opgeleid,

hadden vaker een huisdier, eten minder vaak vlees en doneren vaker aan een

dierenwelzijns- of natuurorganisatie. Het hoog bezorgde cluster gaf vergeleken met de

andere drie clusters lagere scores voor het welzijn van hennen in koloniehuisvesting

en hogere scores voor het welzijn van hennen in het biologische systeem. De conclusie

was dat burgers en professionals welzijn verschillend beoordelen. Burgers vinden dat

het welzijn van leghennen vooral wordt beïnvloed door het welzijnsconcept een natuurlijk leven leiden, terwijl pluimveehouders en -dierenartsen vinden dat vooral het

concept affectieve staat (mate van positieve en negatieve ervaringen) – bestaande uit

de aspecten pijn, angst, stress en verwondingen – het welzijn van hennen beïnvloed.

Risicopercepties van volksgezondheid- en voedselveiligheidsgevaren in verschillende

pluimveehouderijsystemen kan de acceptatie van die systemen beïnvloeden. Daarom

werden in Hoofdstuk 4 de stakeholderpercepties van het risico op Campylobacter

contaminatie van kippenvlees, introductie van aviaire influenza (vogelgriep) in

leghennen en verhoogde dioxinegehalten in eieren van leghennen in de meest

voorkomende houderijsystemen voor vleeskuikens en leghennen onderzocht.

SAMENVATTING

213

Daarnaast onderzochten we factoren die risicopercepties zouden kunnen verklaren.

Burgers vonden de drie risico’s in de systemen zonder uitloop hoger en in de systemen

met uitloop lager dan de twee professionele groepen. Burgers uitten meer zorgen dan

de twee professionele groepen over verschillende factoren van risicoperceptie –

onbekendheid, vertrouwen, ernst, vrijwilligheid, type gevaar, en persoonlijke controle –.

Pluimveehouders en pluimveedierenartsen lijken een te optimistisch beeld van de

volksgezondheidsrisico’s van pluimveebedrijven te hebben, en daarmee lijken ze de

risico’s voor volksgezondheid enigszins ontkennen. De socio-demografische

kenmerken van de burgers waren geassocieerd met risicopercepties van de

verschillende houderijsystemen. Vrouwelijk respondenten en respondenten die

maximaal eenmaal per week vlees eten vonden het risico van de drie gevaren in de

systemen zonder uitloop hoger dan manlijke respondenten en respectievelijk diegene

die vaker dan één keer per week vlees eten. Respondenten die op een boerderij zijn

opgegroeid scoorden het risico in systemen zonder vrije uitloop lager en van systemen

met vrije uitloop hoger dan diegene die niet op een boerderij zijn opgegroeid. De

risicopercepties van de respondenten van alle stakeholdergroepen leken te worden

beïnvloed door intuïtieve gevoelens en onderliggende waarden.

Welzijnsvriendelijke pluimveehouderijsystemen met vrije uitloop leveren mogelijk

hogere risico’s op voor bepaalde volksgezondheidsgevaren zoals Campylobacter,

aviaire influenza en dioxine. Het leidt tot een dilemma of men het welzijn van kippen

moet verhogen of deze risico’s voor de volksgezondheid moet verlagen. In hoofdstuk 5

hebben we de afweging van dit dilemma door burgers en pluimveehouders, en

relevante morele argumenten en morele overtuigingen in een praktische context

onderzocht. Burgers en pluimveehouders beoordeelden drie praktijkcasussen waarin

een conflict tussen het welzijn van kippen en een volksgezondheidsrisico voor

Campylobacter, aviaire influenza en respectievelijk dioxine werd gepresenteerd.

Daarnaast scoorden de participanten de belangrijkheid van morele argumenten voor

de afweging, en in welke mate ze het eens of oneens ware met morele overtuigingen

ten aanzien van mens en kip. Burgers beoordeelden het dilemma vooral in het belang

van het welzijn kippen, terwijl pluimveehouders het dilemma vooral in het belang van

het verlagen van volksgezondheidsrisico’s beoordeelden. Verschillende waarderingen

van morele argumenten en morele overtuigingen, met name die ten aanzien van de

waarde van kippen en natuurlijkheid, konden de verschillende oordelen van het

dilemma verklaren. Pluimveehouders waardeerden morele overtuigingen ten aanzien A

SAMENVATTING

214

de functionele waarde van kippen, mensen staan boven kippen, en eerlijkheid – ofwel

een eerlijke verdeling van kosten en verantwoordelijkheid voor het verbeteren van

dierenwelzijn en verlagen volksgezondheidsrisico’s – hoger dan burgers deden, terwijl

burgers de overtuigingen ten aanzien van natuurlijkheid hoger waardeerden dan

pluimveehouders. De groep mensen, burgers en pluimveehouders, die het dilemma

oordeelden in het voordeel van het welzijn van kippen, scoorden de morele

overtuigingen ten aanzien van natuurlijkheid, sentience van kippen – d.w.z capaciteit

van kippen om positief en negatief gevoel te ervaren – en intrinsieke waarde van

kippen hoger dan de groep die het dilemma in voordeel van het verlagen van

volksgezondheidsrisico’s beoordeelden.

Zorgen in de maatschappij over dierenwelzijn en volksgezondheid lijken vooral

natuurlijkheid te betreffen. Het is onduidelijk wat burgers als natuurlijk zien en wat

hun percepties zijn van een innovatief huisvestingssysteem voor leghennen dat

tegemoetkomt aan zorgen over natuurlijkheid, welzijn van leghennen en

volksgezondheid. Daarom onderzochten we tijdens een bedrijfsbezoek de meningen

van burgers over een innovatief houderijsysteem met een grote overdekte uitloop voor

leghennen en gerelateerde aspecten zoals het welzijn en de gezondheid van leghennen

en volksgezondheidsrisico’s. Twee groepen van negen burgers vulden deels voor en

deels na het zien van de hennen in het houderijsysteem een vragenlijst in. De

deelnemende burgers waren overwegend positief over het houderijsysteem, de grote

overdekte uitloop, de gezondheid en het welzijn van de hennen, en over de

volksgezondheidsrisico’s. Echter, de deelnemers hadden ook zorgen over de ruimte die

de hennen hadden om te bewegen en natuurlijk gedrag uit te oefenen. Deze zorgen

betroffen vooral het deel van de stal met de uit meerdere etages bestaande volière. Het

bevestigt dat burgers focussen op het welzijnsconcept natuurlijk leven. De deelnemers

zagen natuurlijkheid als “een natuurlijke omgeving met ruimte om te bewegen en natuurlijk gedrag uit te oefenen”. Suggesties om het systeem te verbeteren zodat het

beter rekening houdt met de percepties van burgers zijn: een lagere bezettingsgraad in

met name in het deel van de stal met de volière, een minder industrieel design, meer

daglicht, en meer stro op de grond. Verder zou in houderijsystemen in het algemeen

meer verrijking aan de hennen kunnen worden aangeboden, zoals balen met luzerne

stro, verstopplekken, en groene planten of bomen. De conclusie was dat een

houderijsysteem met een grote overdekte uitloop tegemoet kan komen aan de zorgen

van burgers over volksgezondheid, het welzijn van leghennen en natuurlijkheid.

SAMENVATTING

215

Hoofdstuk 7 bediscussieert integraal de resultaten uit de voorgaande hoofdstukken. De

verschillen tussen burgers en de professionals – pluimveehouders en

pluimveedierenartsen – ten aanzien van percepties, overtuigingen, en oordelen konden

door verschillende factoren worden verklaard. Tenslotte werden de implicaties van

deze thesis voor de toekomst van de pluimveehouderij bediscussieert. De verschillen

tussen de opvattingen van burgers, pluimveehouders en pluimveedierenartsen over de

pluimveehouderij konden worden verklaard door:

- verschillen in de percepties van welzijn van kippen - verschillen in de percepties van volksgezondheidsrisico’s van verschillende

houderijsystemen - verschillen in morele overtuigingen ten aanzien van kippen, welzijn en

houderijsystemen - verschillen in het wegen van morele waarden en overtuigingen - de context – d.w.z of iemand wel of niet betrokken is bij de pluimveehouderij - gevoel en intuïtie - kennis van en ervaring met de pluimveehouderij - socio-demografische kenmerken

A

DANKWOORD

216

DANKWOORD

Promoveren was soms eenzaam. Hele dagen aan één ding werken; het toverwoord was

focus. Natuurlijk kon ik het niet alleen en er waren veel mensen die mij hielpen met de

inhoud van mijn onderzoek, brainstormen, reflecteren, en me feedback gaven.

Daarnaast waren er mensen die me op moeilijke momenten – ja, die momenten waren

er! – vertrouwen en steun gaven, of me even uit mijn promotiefocus haalden om te

ontspannen. Sommigen hebben op een hele concrete manier een bijdrage geleverd en

hen zal ik hier persoonlijk bedanken. Anderen hebben een minder concrete bijdrage

geleverd en waren op de achtergrond meer of minder zichtbaar. Om niemand te

vergeten wil ik nu alvast eenieder die me op één of andere manier heeft bijgestaan van

harte bedanken!

Het idee om te promoveren ontstond in het oude CAH-gebouw op de kamer van Martin

Duijkers. Martin, jij zag dat ik toe was aan een nieuwe uitdaging en vroeg of

promoveren niet wat voor mij was. Martin, dank hiervoor! Ik werd enthousiast en ben

met Dinand gaan praten. Op mijn oude kamer, CKo9 één van de weinig delen van de

oude school die er nog staat, hebben Dinand en ik gebrainstormd over een mogelijk

onderwerp. Dinand bleef als co-promotor betrokken. Dinand, je bent goed in de juiste

vragen stellen, vooral de vraag “waarom” stelde je vaak, waardoor mijn denken een

stuk helderder werd. Daarmee hielp je me om op zoek te gaan naar de logica en de

verbinding tussen onderwerpen, en je stimuleerde me om nog een stap verder te

denken. Dank voor je enthousiasme, onderbouwde en vooral eerlijke mening!

Nadat ik samen met Dinand een promotieonderwerp had bedacht kwam Elsbeth in

beeld. Ik kende Elsbeth van de tijd dat wij allebei bij de hoofdafdeling

Landbouwhuisdieren bij Diergeneeskunde werkten en ondertussen werkt Elsbeth bij

de Wageningen Universiteit. Ik vertelde Elsbeth over mijn idee voor

promotieonderzoek en zij zei vrij snel: “ik wil je wel begeleiden” en ze werd mijn

promotor. Elsbeth, jouw inzet en betrokkenheid bij mijn promotie was enorm en dat

heb ik erg gewaardeerd. Je hebt oog voor detail. Ik kon daar ook wel eens van balen,

maar uiteindelijk werd het er beter en beter door. Elsbeth, heel veel dank voor al je

inzet en ondersteuning, ook tijdens momenten dat jij het niet zo makkelijk had! Last

but not least kwam Bas erbij als promotor. Al snel werd de rol van Bas duidelijk. Bas,

jij kon de hoofdlijn in mijn teksten ontdekken, stippelde een duidelijk structuur uit,

DANKWOORD

217

waardoor de stukken een stuk helderder werden. Je was meer op de achtergrond

aanwezig, maar ik kon altijd bij je terecht voor steun of dringende vragen. Veel dank

voor je inbreng en steun!

Eén van de lastigste onderwerpen van dit proefschrift was het deel over

risicoperceptie. Marijn Poortvliet hielp mij bij het opstellen van de vragenlijst en het

schrijven van het artikel over risicoperceptie. En zo werd het op voorhand lastigste

artikel als eerste geaccepteerd voor publicatie. Marijn, dank voor je hulp! Een ander

onderwerp waar ik voor het schrijven dit proefschrift minder bekend mee was, is

dierethiek. Ik mocht de cursus Animal & Nature Ethics volgen bij Franck Meijboom en

Robert Heeger. Franck, je hebt me geënthousiasmeerd voor dierethiek, zodanig dat ik

nu lid ben van de editorial board van de nieuwsbrief van de EurSafe en met plezier de

conferenties bijwoon.

In het begin van mijn onderzoek heeft een Klankbordgroep bestaande uit

afgevaardigden van verschillende stakeholdergroepen mij input gegeven op het

onderzoek, de enquête en de eerste analyse hiervan. Marijke de Jong-Timmerman,

Caroline van Heijningen, Alex Spieker, Mieke Matthijs, Ernst Beitler, Francoise

Divanach en Ruud Zanders dank voor jullie inbreng vanuit de verschillende

perspectieven.

Vele collega’s van de Aeres Hogeschool Dronten (voorheen CAH en Vilentum

Hogeschool Dronten) hebben me gesteund. Wim van de Weg, dank voor het

vertrouwen en de ruimte die je me gaf om een aanvraag voor een promotiebeurs te

doen. Mijn huidige teamleider, Corné Kocks, faciliteerde wanneer nodig mijn

onderzoek. Als ik aangaf dat ik niet aanwezig kon zijn, omdat ik moest schrijven

steunde Corné mijn besluit. Dat gaf de ruimte en rust, die zo belangrijk waren om goed

te kunnen schrijven. Corné, heel erg veel dank voor al je vertrouwen en steun!

Hans en Ron, ooit medepromovendi, nu gepromoveerd en mijn paranimfen. Ron, we

hebben veel gespard over het promoveren en waar we tegen aanliepen. Dank voor de

vele prettige gesprekken! Hans, naast dat ook jij me steunde bij mijn promotie,

herinner ik me vooral onze samenwerking op andere vlakken. Bijna alles waar ik aan

werkte naast het promoveren deed ik samen met jou. Het was fijn om met jou samen

te werken, ik heb veel geleerd van je gestructureerde manier van werken. Je draait A

DANKWOORD

218

niet om dingen heen en we zitten vaak op één lijn – misschien omdat we beiden

dierenarts zijn? – . Jammer dat je bijna met pensioen gaat! Ron & Hans, ik ben trots op

ons dat we het hebben gedaan: werken en promoveren tegelijk. Super dat juist jullie

naast me op het podium staan!

En dan zijn er nog heel veel andere collega’s om te noemen en bedanken. Collega’s uit

mijn huidige Team Praktijkgericht Onderzoek, maar ook die uit mijn vorige teams

Veehouderij en Diergezondheid, en collega’s van andere teams. Dank voor jullie

interesse, sparren of gewoon ff koffiedrinken, maar vooral voor jullie begrip als ik

weer eens “nee” moest zeggen. Evert, dank voor je tijd! Jij was een heel geschikt

proefpersoon voor het invullen van mijn enquêtes, juist omdat je niet zo bekend was

met de pluimveehouderij en ook nog kritisch was. Door jouw bijdrage kon ik de vragen

duidelijker formuleren. Marjan, dank voor je gezelligheid en steun tijdens een koffie of

een lekker diner! Kathalijne en Annet, samen met Ron mijn kamergenoten, dank voor

het aanhoren van mijn geklaag, het vieren van succesmomenten, jullie begrip en steun.

En dan waren er natuurlijk de collega’s van de Adaptatiefysiologiegroep in

Wageningen. Ik werkte gemiddeld maar één dag in de week in Wageningen, maar ik

was daar altijd met veel plezier. Lora en Nanette, jullie zijn de steun en toeverlaat

voor de hele vakgroep, en waren dat zeker voor mij. Jullie waren een goed luisterend

oor, wisten alles, regelden alles. Heel veel dank voor jullie hulp! Bij ADP heb ik veel

leuke kamergenoten gehad die de dagen in Wageningen gezellig maakten. Ik noem er

hier een paar om verschillende redenen. Mariëlle, jij was de enige die zich ook met

dierethiek bezighield. Het was heel fijn om met je te kunnen sparren. Jammer dat je

niet zo lang bleef als ik. Maarten, ooit “mijn student” in Dronten, nu ook aan het

promoveren. Ik wens je veel succes met het laatste stuk. Rennie en Marieke, mijn

wandelmaatjes. We hebben veel gepraat over van alles en nog wat. Met jullie was het

een stuk gezelliger!

En dan is er nog een groep mensen die ik wil bedanken, maar vooral mijn excuses wil

aanbieden: mijn lieve vrienden! Ik was druk en had veel minder tijd voor jullie dan

normaal. “Vroeger” reed ik een paar keer per jaar naar Alice, Hendrik & kinderen in

het verre Groningen, naar Anne in Duitsland, en naar – niet eens zo heel ver weg –

Marjon, Dirk en Loek. Wat hebben we elkaar weinig gezien. Maar we kennen elkaar al

zo lang en ik weet dat jullie er voor mij zijn, net als ik er voor jullie ben. Jullie gaan me

DANKWOORD

219

weer vaker zien! En dat geldt ook voor een aantal andere mensen die ik heb beloofd

mee af te spreken, maar waar het niet van kwam (Hanneke, Paola, en anderen).

Veel mensen weten dat ik graag in Italië kom, Italiaans eet, drink en spreek. Studeren

in Perugia leverde mij niet alleen levenslange vriendschappen op, maar ook een idee

voor een promotieonderwerp. Raffaella, Gloria, Claudia e vostre famiglie, da molti ani

siete le miei amici e vi chiamo la mia famiglia Italiana. Da pocco il gruppo amici

Italiana è espansa: Mariagrazia & Ferdinando, la gente di Casal Gabbi, e Francesca.

Siete sempre nel mio cuore! Ogni visita a Italia ha dato nuovo energia. Er waren ook

lieve mensen dichtbij hier in Utereg: de Kooijskies! Lieve Cathy & Gert, dank voor de

vele fijne momenten samen en het vastleggen daarvan op foto. Duum, Brimm en

Wiesz: wat een vrolijkheid! Nog dichterbij: onze buurtjes in de Blokstraat. Dank voor

de vaak onverwacht leuke momenten.

Familie, die kies je niet, maar die krijg je. Gelukkig kreeg ik een hele lieve

schoonfamilie in het mij zo vertrouwde Twente. Zeeuwtjes, dank voor jullie warme

thuis! Hoe druk ik ook was, een dagje of weekend in Hengelo was altijd relaxed. Lieve

zus Debora, zwager Tom en neef Christiaan, jullie zijn alles voor me, maar ook jullie

heb ik de laatste tijd te weinig gezien. Dat gaat snel veranderen! Deze zomer kan ik

weer op neef Christian passen. Als laatste, maar zeker niet de minste, mijn lief, MIJN

Tom! Zoals beloofd ga ik je niet bedanken, want natuurlijk was en ben je er voor mij.

Daarom ben je mijn lief, mijn thuis en mijn alles!

.

A

ABOUT THE AURTHOR

220

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Mariska van Asselt was born on the 5th of March 1974 in Hengelo, Overijssel, the

Netherlands. She grew up in Borne and completed secondary school in Hengelo in

1992. Her main interests were playing water polo, animals – in particular rabbits –

and she spent her summer holidays with her parents and sister in Italy. These

interests influenced her career. In 1992 she started to study Veterinary Science at the

Faculty of Veterinary Medicine in Utrecht. Till 1996 she combined her study with

playing water polo in the highest division in the Netherlands. During her study her

interests changed from companion animals in Farm animals. In her last year of her

study she did an internship Food hygiene of products of animal origin in Perugia. In

September 2001 she graduated as a veterinarian with a specialisation in farm animals

and started to work at the Department of Farm Animal Health at the Utrecht

University as a junior lecturer and veterinarian in the ambulatory clinic. Later she

joined the clinical pathophysiology group at this department and wrote her first

scientific contribution. In September 2006 she started as a lecturer in animal health at

the CAH Dronten – now the Aeres University of Applied Sciences. Later she applied

successfully for a PhD position at the Aeres University of Applied Sciences and a

collaboration was started with the Adaptation Physiology Group of Wageningen

University & Research. She wrote a research proposal that was awarded with doctoral

grant for teachers by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) in

December 2012. The aim of the PhD-project was to study the trade-off between chicken

welfare and public health risks in poultry husbandry.

ABOUT THE AURTHOR

221

A

LIST OF PUBLICATIONS

222


Peer reviewed scientific papers

Van Asselt, M., Ekkel, E. D., Kemp, B., & Stassen, E. N. (2015). Best broiler

husbandry system and perceived importance of production aspects by Dutch citizens,

poultry farmers and veterinarians. In D. E. Dumitras, I. M. Jitea, & S. Aerts (Eds.),

Know your food: Food ethics and innovation (pp. 138-143). Wageningen: Wageningen

Academic Publishers. doi: 10.3920/978-90-8686-813-1_20

Van Asselt, M., Ekkel, E. D., Kemp, B., & Stassen, E. N. (2016). Role of moral

values in the trade-off between animal welfare and food safety risks in broiler

husbandry In A. S. Olsson, S. M. Araújo, & M. F. Vieira (Eds.), Food futures: ethics, science and culture (pp. 273-278). Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers

Books. doi: 10.3920/978-90-8686-834-6_41

Van Asselt, M., Poortvliet, P. M., Ekkel, E. D., Kemp, B., & Stassen, E. N. (2018).

Risk perceptions of public health and food safety hazards in poultry husbandry by

citizens, poultry farmers and poultry veterinarians. Poultry Science, 97(2), 607-619.

doi: 10.3382/ps/pex325

Van Asselt, M., Ekkel, E. D., Kemp, B., & Stassen, E. N. (2019). The trade-off between chicken welfare and public health risks in poultry husbandry: significance of moral convictions. Accepted for publication in Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics.

Contributions to scientific conferences

Van Asselt, M., Ekkel, E. D., Kemp, B., & Stassen, E. N. (2015). Best broiler

husbandry system and perceived importance of production aspects by Dutch citizens,

poultry farmers and veterinarians Oral presentation at 12th EurSafe Conference. Know your food: Food ethics and innovation. Cluj-Napoca, Roemenia.

Van Asselt, M., Ekkel, E. D., Kemp, B., & Stassen, E. N. (2016). Role of moral

values in the trade-off between animal welfare and food safety risks in broiler

husbandry Oral presentation at the 13th EurSafe Conference. Food futures: ethics, science and culture. Porto, Portugal.

Van Asselt, M., Ekkel, E. D., Kemp, B., & Stassen, E. N. (2017). Citizens perceive broiler welfare differently from poultry farmers and poultry veterinarians. Poster

presented at the 7th International Conference on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at

Farm and Group level, Ede, the Netherlands.


223

Van Asselt, M., & Stassen, E. N. (2017). Arguments in a dilemma between laying

hen welfare and food safety Oral presentation at the WIAS Science Day 2017.

Wageningen.

Other

Van Asselt, M. (2013). Een blij kuiken of een veilig kuiken? Een dilemma tussen welzijn en voedselveiligheid. Presentation at the Hygieia najaarsymposium. De kip van

de toekomst o.d.z. vleesmachines of dieren met gevoel? Utrecht, The Netherlands, 30

October 2013

Van Asselt, M. (2014). Blije kip of veilige eieren; Een dilemma? Presentation at

Barneveld-taire Barbecue, Stichting Wereld Eidag, De ontdelkkingstocht rond het ei. Barneveld, the Netherlands, 10 September 2014

Van Asselt, M. (2014). Blije kip of veilige kip? Een dilemma tussen dierenwelzijn

en volksgezondheid. Presentations at Inspiratiesessie Kenniscentrum Agrofood en ondernemen. Dronten, the Netherlands, 1 April 2014

Van Asselt, M. (2014) Dilemma: Blije of veilige kip. Interviewer: I. Lesscher.

Nieuwe Oogst. Vol 19, , 5 april 2014.

Van Asselt, M. (2014). Uitgangswaarden burger en sector liggen dicht bijeen.

Pluimveehouderij, p 29.

Van Asselt, M. (2015). Opvattingen over de pluimveehouderij Ontbijtsessie Poultry Expertice Centre (PEC). Barneveld, the Netherlands, 10 November 2015.

Van Asselt, M. (2017). Editorial. EurSafe Newsletter. Special Issue on Vonne Lund price winners, 19, June 2017. pp 1-2.

Van Asselt, M. (2018). Risicopercepties nodig voor maatschappelijk debat over

pluimveesector. Retrieved from

https://www.poultryexpertisecentre.com/columns/risicopercepties-nodig

A

WIAS EDUCATION CERTIFICATE

224


Research Skills Training (6 ECTS1) - Writing PhD research proposal – Awarded with NWO Doctoral Grant for Teachers, 2012

- Writing WIAS PhD research proposal, 2013

In-Depth Studies (8 ECTS) - Animal and Nature Ethics, Ethics Institute Utrecht University, 2011-2012

Statutory Courses (3 ECTS) - Use of laboratory animal, Utrecht University, 2003

Professional Skills Support Courses (4 ECTS) - Techniques for Writing and Presenting Scientific Papers, WSG, 2014

- Efficient Writing Strategies, WGS 2014

- Course Scientific Writing, WGS, 2014

- Course Last Stretch of the PhD Programme, WGS, 2017

Scientific Exposure (12 ECTS) International conferences (4.4 ECTS) - 2nd Minding Animals Conference, Utrecht, the Netherlands, July 4–7, 2012

- 12th EurSafe conference, Cluj-Napoca, Romania, May 28-30, 2015

- Vethics conference, May 19, 2016

- 13th EurSafe conference, Porto, September 28-30, 2016

- 7th International Conference on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level.

Ede, 5-8 Sept 2017

Seminars and workshops (0.9 ECTS) - WIAS Science Day, Wageningen, the Netherlands, 2013/02/28

- Symposium CVI, Campylobacter bij pluimvee, Lelystad, 24/06/2013

- Symposium Hygieia "De kip van de toekomst", Utrecht, 30/10/2013

- WIAS Science Day, Wageningen, the Netherlands, 2014/02/13

- WIAS Science Day, Wageningen, the Netherlands, 2017/02/06

1 one ECTS credit equals a study load of approximately 28 hours


225

Presentations (7.0 ECTS)) - Blij kuiken of veilig kuiken? Een dilemma tussen welzijn en voedselveiligheid. Symposium

Hygieia, 30/10/2013. Oral presentation.

- Blije kip en veilige eieren; een dilemma? Barneveld-taire Barbecue, 2014/09/10. Oral

presentation.

- Opvattingen over de pluimveehouderij. PEC Ontbijtsessie 2015/11/10. Oral presentation.

- Best broiler husbandry system and importance of production aspects by Dutch citizens,

poultry farmers and veterinarians. EurSafe, 2015/05/28, oral presentation.

- Role of moral values in the trade-off between animal welfare and food safety risks in broiler

husbandry. EurSafe 2016/09/26, oral presentation.

- Arguments in a dilemma between laying hen welfare and food safety. WIAS Science Day,

2017/02/06. Oral presentation.

- Citizens percieve broiler welfare differently from poultry farmers and poultry veterinarians.

WAFL 2017/09/05. Poster presentation - 3rd prize best poster award

Supervision of thesis students (7 ECTS) - De preventie van Campylobacter bij vleeskijkens op biologische vleeskuikenhouderijen in

Nederland (BSc.)

- The attitude of Polish dairy farmers towards animal welfare and their willingness to change

to more cow comfort in their dairy barns (MSc.)

- Intention to change behaviour. The intention of field service advisors in the Dutch dairy

sector to change their behaviour (MSc.)

- Rethinking and optimizing servitization in the laying hen feed business (MSc.)

Preparing course material (4 ECTS) - Development of an ethics course at Aeres University of Applied Sciences Dronten, 2012

Lecturing (10 ECTS) - Lecturing animal ethics at Aeres University of Applied Sciences Dronten, 2012-2017

Management Skills Training (4 ECTS) Organisation of seminars and courses - Organisation consulting group workshop (2 times), 2012-2016

- Organisation farm visit (2018)

Membership of boards and committees - Editor EursafeNews, Newletter of the European Society of Agriculture and Food Ethics (2016

- today) A

Colophon

The research described in this thesis was financially supported by the Dutch Poultry

Expertise Centre (PEC) and the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research

(NWO).

Cover design: Remco Wetzels | remcowetzels.nl | [email protected]

Lay-out: Tom de Zeeuw en Mariska van Asselt

Printed by: ProefschriftMaken

Conflicts between chicken welfare and - WUR E-depot home

Documents

Transcript of Conflicts between chicken welfare and - WUR E-depot home